*1 265 v Van Schs Gardner Burén GARDNER v VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 20, 1992, May Lansing. Docket No. 134246. Submitted at Decided 7, 1992, appeal sought. 9:55 December a.m. Leave to Anthony compensation sought for workers’ benefits men- disability allegedly employment tal related to the Van his with Compensation Appeal Burén Public Schools. The Workers’ benefits, open determining Board ordered an award of that he disabled, mentally personal injuries he received the employment, employment of course and that his cantly aggravated ap- his mental condition. The defendant pealed by granted. leave Appeals
The Court of held: allegations plot The 1. harassment and of a or scheme to by appeal fire the not were substantiated the board. requiring regard 2. Error reversal occurred with to the appeal finding standard used the board causation and personal injuries. objective analy- that the An suffered personal injury, usually sis is used to determine whether a precipitating form of a the work-related event in mental dis- cases, ability affected an condi- mental objective why tion. board did indicate in this case an person significant would find the the two incidents that board requirement personal injury. found satisfied It the of a objectively aggravated be stated the incidents significant mental tiff’s condition manner or constituted an To the extent mental condition was events, perceptions affected due effect was to his events that the board never found be accurate. Mental compensable they disabilities are not unless arise of actual out employment perceptions. events and not unfounded supported by A3. claim for mental cannot be employee or of which the is not and never aware perceives. appeal relying opinion 4. The board erred in on the of a References 2d, 339, Compensation Am Jur Workers’ 597-598. §§ compensable compensation Mental disorders as under workmen’s acts. 97 ALR3d 161. App Opinion of Court expert’s expert support its causation. medical upon found facts never was based upon appeal of some of inaccurate characterizations board and thát the board. the facts *2 required the as found the 5. Remand is not facts the claim. board Reversed. Jansen, J., dissenting, majority applied an stated objective-employee essentially approach for deter- standardless compensation
mining an individual workers’ claim. Objective — Compensation —
1. Mental Disabilities Workers’ Analysis. compensable disabilities are not under Worker’s Mental they Disability Compensation Act unless out of arise actual perceptions; employment rather than unfounded events personal objective analysis used determine whether a injury, usually precipitating in the form of a work-related cases, significantly in affected an em- event mental (MCL 418.301[2]; 17.237[301][2]). ployee’s mental condition MSA Expert Hypothetical Compensation — — 2. Witnesses Workers’ Questions. assumptions hypothetical question in a must be in Factual sub- accepted by the evidence the Workers’ stantial accord with Compensation may rely Appeal Board the board on an before question. expert’s given answer to Sachs, Kadushin, O’Hare, Helveston & Wald- Ries), man, S. P.C. Granner for (by Cope), Lacey & Susan B. Jones for the defen- (by dant. C.J., Doctoroff,
Before: and and Jansen Corri- gan, JJ. Compensation
Doctoroff, C.J. Workers’ Appeal open Board ordered an award of benefits for that he mentally after disabled, received personal injuries he of his and that his employment, employ- course aggravated ment his mental condi- Schs Van Burén Opinion of the Court requiring tion. We error find reversal reasoning pertaining wcab’s injuries and their causation.
Plaintiff worked as a for custodian defendant February from 1978 until 1984. June He worked 4, high at a from school 1978 until the summer of High 1981. He then Junior worked the South During School until December of 1983. the sum- mer of worked at the North Junior returned to the South Junior High School, but September School in 1983 and continued to day
work until his there last June 1984. work overwhelming The evidence almost unpleasant, probably threatening, tiff was an person, poor employee. as well aas Plaintiff had at supervisors, complained they least four performance. employ- about Fellow complained ees about conduct. The "poor employee” recog- awas *3 testimony plaintiff nized that indicated that profane person poor volatile, was "a who was a employee.” petition alleged
Plaintiff’s constant harassment leading psychiatric alleged disability. to a He nu- merous events or incidents in of his claim. plaintiff’s employees being These included fellow jealous expensive supervisors home, of his making employees other false accusations about plaintiff threatening people, plaintiff at times be- ing given conflicting supervisor his instructions principal and the school at the South Junior 1983, School between summers of 1981 and supervisor offering paid and the head days exchange helping get off in to for rid of plaintiff’s Many of claims of ha- flatly involved; rassment were those denied explained perceived. something other claims were less plaintiff than what The did not wcab 197 op the Court plaintiff it did was harassed and find that other) (one way specific findings re- or the make allega- allegations. garding plaintiff’s most plot or and of an "elaborate” tions of harassment repeatedly he mentions to fire him that scheme by the wcab. brief were never substantiated his Rather, involv- two "occasions” found ing "incidents” affected plaintiff disability. psychiatric wcab found required plaintiff injured by fact that was was "the regard grievance hearing subjected to to a to be checked work and the fact that excess regard griev- superiors.” up to the on With hearing, in the winter which occurred ance 1983, that was held request and that it resulted a reduction assigned in- duties. "excess” assigned to due work loads volved was to increased layoffs. employees as the result of "checking up regard plaintiff, the on” With Randolph, supervisor, found the head Ed during requested plaintiff’s supervisor the summer Owens, license Hattie to find requested plate number, another em- that Owens help Randolph ployee, Daily, her, Dan and that helped promised to "take care of’ Owens if she Randolph. Randolph wanted to job testified working another check whether Randolph heard and be- rumors had unex- numerous cause had accumulated Randolph plained absences. further testified letting "taking care of’ he had in mind Owens *4 early to. when needed her arrive late or leave she plaintiff Daily that he But that he told testified "keep eye plaintiff and asked to on” had been paid if he could he had been offered time off that get plaintiff’s "investiga- plate number. license Van Burén Schs Opinion op the Court apparently Daily tion” occurred in- never once plaintiff formed of what Owens had asked. additionally plaintiff found that re- injury up on” in ceived an the form of when he was "checked
Randolph ordering plaintiff’s first su- pervisor keep at South Junior School a performance. record of work There is no plaintiff in evidence the record that aware of was plaintiff order, this or to and never mentioned at trial either the doctors that testified. testimony psychiatrist basis of On the inju- Feldstein, Richard ries found that these significantly aggravated plaintiff’s mental con- opined sig- dition. Dr. Feldstein there was a relationship nificant cáusal between the stresses plaintiff experienced at work and mental disability. given The doctor’s in an- hypothetical question swer to a the doc- which accuracy tor was asked assume the of the history plaintiff previously given had the doctor among things, assume, and to other that one of plaintiff’s supervisors was "resentful of’ gave plaintiff beyond "additional work loads that which was the norm.” No mention hypothetical was made of the incident in- volving Daily plate Dan license number, but did mention incident examples one of several harassment when he gave history. Dr. Feldstein a work excess load by plaintiff incident not mentioned in the gave history to Dr. Feldstein. Dr. Feldstein happened believed claims of what true, were and the doctor said suffering tiff had described "abuse” at work. The issues for the this case injury whether suffered precipitating, actual, nature of an work-related trauma or and whether such contrib- *5 App 265 197 Mich 270 op the Court his mental or accelerated to, aggravated, uted 418.301(1) MCL manner. in a 418.401(2)(b); (2), 17.237(301X1), MCL (2); MSA Motors v General 17.237(401)(2)(b), Iloyan MSA 302 595, 600; 468 NW2d Corp, App 187 Mich dis- (1991). that conceded Defendant and causation personal The issues of abled. the wcab. Dressler of fact for issues were both Mich Casting Corp, Die 402 Rapids Grand Checker Cab (1978); Harris v 250; 262 629 NW2d (1952); Lizut 66; 599 Mfg Corp, 333 Mich 52 NW2d 199; 255 Co, App 74 Mich Novelty v Peerless (1977). of the Factual determinations 637 NW2d fraud, conclusive, supported by if absent are wcab record. MCL in the evidence any competent Mo- v General Aquilina 17.237(861), 418.861; MSA 923 206, 213; 267 NW2d Corp, tors 403 Mich fact-finding (1978). in mind our lack Bearing requiring error find we nevertheless authority, in the standard used reversal personal injuries that suffered finding finding regarding causation. in the wcab’s is used to determine analysis objective An form of a injury (usually personal whether a disabil- in mental work-related precipitating cases) men- affected an ity Ed, v Detroit Bd Boyle tal condition. — — & (1992); Sobh v Frederick 255; App Herrud, Inc, 24, 28; 472 NW2d 189 Mich Sobh, (1991). did in this case As find person would why objective indicate satis- that the wcab found the two incidents cant of a requirement fied the the wcab involved first incident excess work. The being given claim layoffs load was due to excess work claimed remaining employees required There was no more work than before. to do v Van Burén Schs Opinion op the Court represented the work load ha- part plaintiff, rassment or plaintiff of a scheme to fire allege. grievance hearing continues to plaintiff’s request, occurred at concluded favorably many It also occurred day months before the last worked (five year or more, six months to a or the record is *6 clear) being and laid-off re- by day called the time of last of work. examining Plaintiff never mentioned to his own problem doctor that he had a with an excess work load.
Reduced to its essentials, accurate and as found by wcab, received additional work about his work layoffs, complained because of load, accordingly.” and his duties were "cut It objectively cannot be stated aggravated plaintiff’s that this incident
mental condition in a cant Indeed, manner. it is doubtful whether this Boyle, supra. event constituted an See To the extent that mental condition was event, affected this the effect must have been perceptions (e.g., part due to of the event of a plaintiff) scheme to harass that the wcab never found to be accurate. Mental disabilities are not compensable they unless arise out of actual events employment perceptions rather than unfounded 17.237(301) (2). 418.301(2); thereof. MCL MSA See App Greenwood Ed, v Pontiac Bd 186 Mich (1990), 396-397; 465 for another case where the wcab found certain incidents but not the actual "harassment” claimed plaintiff. upon by
The second incident relied wcab finding injury "plaintiff a was that up superiors.” checked on its on The relied finding that in the summer of 1983 supervisor tiff’s was ordered to ascertain 197 op the Court requested supervisor plate number license assistance relied on employee. also a fellow from supervisor plaintiffs first its was ordered School South Junior at the keep performance. work a record finding, regard it does not to this last With the wcab’s evidence mental no there was determination it. A was ever aware supported by an cannot be claim perceives. employee even never or objectively Again, stated that it cannot be actually "checking up incident on” any never culminated incident wcab—which year investigation a occurred and which actual plaintiffs day affect of work—would last before employee employer (even one’s To have manner. in a plate number license check on one’s unknown) particularly is not if the reason inci- this stressful, dent, larly, performance is no evidence and there Simi- itself, affected checking supervisor work on an during hours is or activities *7 virtually something at one done to constitute a and cannot time or another theory incident was that this Plaintiffs example pattern of harassment a or scheme one of only get as fact But found rid of him. the wcab to example, or the harassment. not the scheme the by light our the facts found In wcab objective application standard, decision of an necessary is not A remand of the wcab is reversed. the wcab the facts as found because plaintiffs claim. relying on Dr. Feld- erred wcab also opinion support its of causation. stein’s Although only opinion was the Dr. Feldstein’s upon by specifically the relied evidence usually war- causation, alone would this error find 273 v Van Burén Schs Court rant a remand because it is function to wcab’s causation, determine medical and evidence other than a opinion upon. can be relied Kostamo v Marquette Mining Co, 105, 120-121; Iron 405 Mich (1979). light foregoing 274 our NW2d But appropriate conclusion, a remand this case. rely opinion given
In order to
on an
in answer to
hypothetical question,
assumptions
a
the factual
hypothetical
must be in substantial
accord
accepted
with the evidence
at trial. Alexander v
Mfg Co,
140, 146;
Covel
(1953);
336 Mich
Osantowski v
131 Mich
(1984) (at
728, 738;
Dr. Feldstein believed that beyond supervi- a work load sor’s resentment. norm because of a
In contrast, the wcab found layoffs, received a excess work as result of something of, Dr. Feldstein was never informed and there was no evidence received more anyone work than else. This is the claim of excess work was one the two alleged fact, instances the and it represented accurately was not to Dr. Feldstein. regarded The other instance found checking up discovering on his license plate number. event was not This even mentioned hypothetical question, in the other than general remark that the doctor should assume *8 everything plaintiff ever told the doctor was App 265 197 Mich by Jansen, J. Dissent perhaps to This leads "essentially correct.” It was opinion: in the doctor’s deficiency greatest factual assumption plaintiffs that all based on true. were of harassment allegations and claim as well allegations, of plaintiffs majority vast get to and a scheme his theories of harassment him, fact the wcab. never found as rid Thus, upon based the doctor’s upon by the wcab and cant facts never of some of the facts inaccurate characterizations that were found. decision, to unnecessary is
Because of our issue, pertains which address defendant’s second However, compensation. we the correct rate the issue. note concedes Reversed.
Corrigan,
J., concurred.
Jansen,
(dissenting).
J.
For the reasons stated
Ed,
in Bach
Flint Bd
197 Mich
v
my dissents
—
— (1992),
v
Detroit
Boyle
247;
App
NW2d
—
—
(1992),
Ed,
Bd of
I
App 255;
197 Mich
accept
application
majority’s
stan
objective-employee
essentially
standardless
em
of an individual
dard for
determination
claim. The
ployee’s specific
compensation
workers’
Compensation Act
remedial
Disability
Workers’
legislation that should be construed
effectuate
Co,
H B
purpose. McAvoy
Sherman
401 Mich
its
Twp,
v Cascade
Loper
419;
(1977);
258 NW2d
(1984).
106;