*1 Lizut v LIZUT v PEERLESS NOVELTY COMPANY
Opinion of the Court Compensation Appeal 1. Workmen’s — and Error —Standard of Re- view. Compensa-
The test in an of a decision of the Workmen’s Appeal Appeals, tion sitting Board is not whether the Court of fact-finder, contrary, as a would find to the but whether the correctly understood the law and whether there is support evidence to of fact. Compensation Findings 2. Workmen’s — of Fact —-Evidence—Work- Injuries. Related Compensation A Appeal decision of the Workmen’s Board which proper denied benefits to a claimant was and based on a permissible finding where there was substantial conflict in the regarding evidence whether the claimant had suffered a work- injury. related R. B. Compensation Appeal 3. Workmen’s — Question Error — Law —Standard of Review. Appeals, The Court of ñndings in order to review the Compensation Appeal question law, Workmen’s Board as a testimony adopted, followed, must know the the standard reasoning employed by reaching the board in its conclusion. Compensation Findings Support 4. Workmen’s — of Fact — in Rec- ord. Compensation mere statement Appeal Board that a support claimant "is not disabled” is insufficient to explained denial ofbenefíts where it is not or otherwise related any testimony quoted opinion. in the board’s Reference for Points in Headnotes 2d, Compensation 82 Am Jur [1-6] Workmen’s §§ 74 op Opinion the Court Findings Appeal Error — 5. Workmen’s — Support in Record. Fact — affirm the Workmen’s Appeals mandated Court *2 only when Compensation Appeal of fact those Board’s by proof. supported are Support Compensation Findings of Fact — in Rec- 6. Workmen’s — Injury. ord —Work-Related Appeal Compensation Board that conclusion of supported by injury is not at work a claimant did not suffer by relied the record where none occurring on the date but board to the events relates subsequent exclusively medical status of with the deals instead the claimant. Compensation Appeal Appeal from Workmen’s Rap- at Grand January Board. Submitted 28015.) (Docket Decided No. ids. denied, —. Leave
1977. against Lizut Lois Claim Company for Insurance and Allstate Company granted. The Benefits compensation. workmen’s Board reversed. Appeal Workmen’s Affirmed. granted. leave appeals by Plaintiff VanLeuven, Libner, Kortering, Co- McCroskey, Bott), for plaintiff. Timothy & Brock chrane (by R. Smith, Roegge (by Lance Rice & Haughey, Mather), for defendants. J., B. and J. H. Beasley, P. and R.
Before: Burns JJ. Gillis, decision appeals P. J. from a
Beasley, Board Compensation Appeal of the Workmen’s alleged for an her benefits denying November on or about received find- board reversed decision of granted which judge law of an administrative ings to plaintiff. benefits Novelty Co Lizut v Peerless Opinion of the Court
This is the kind of close case where the tempta- great tion is judgment substitute of an appellate court that of the Workmen’s Compen- Appeal sation This is particularly where, Board. so here, 3-2 voted reverse the judge. administrative But substitute our judgment would to the law. contrary be
The 1963 Michigan provides: Constitution "Findings compensation proceed- fact in workmen’s ings shall be conclusive the absence of fraud unless provided otherwise by law.” Const art 28.§ is This strong, unequivocal language. This con- provision implemented stitutional 861 of § compensation workmen’s statute which pro- vides: *3 by acting "The made the board fact within fraud, powers, in
its the absence shall be conclusive. appeals The court of supreme the court shall have power questions any review involved in law final board, application order of the if by ag- is made grieved party 30 days by within after such any order permissible method under the rules of the courts 17.237(861). 418.861; laws of this state.” MCLA MSA bar,
In the case at the appeal board found that the claimant did not sustain a injury work-related 16, 1970, and, therefore, November denied ben- her. efits to There was substantial conflict evidence. The board has recited the testi- they mony choose believe and their which we, is decision based. The test is not whether fact-finder, as a sitting contrary; would find to the rather, the test is whether the appeal board cor- rectly understood law and there whether their of fact. DeGeer v support evidence 199 Burns, J. by B.R. Co, 96, 100; Equipment Farm DeGeer NW2d 794 the law correctly; interpreted on or about occurred injury if no work-related not entitled to was November our recit- by served would be purpose No benefits. 43 pages com- included ing would be We majority. a decision prising doing, from precluded are doing exactly what we the facts. The weighing evaluating namely, which indi- evidence to believe board chose not occur on did that a work-related cated finding on permissible It 1970. was November record. this
Affirmed. Gillis, J., concurred.
J. H. (dissenting). appeals Plaintiff R. B. from the reversal judge’s of an administrative
Appeal Board for a her granting benefits decision 16, 1970. on November received at work injured been while to have claimed barrels with pound 150 to 200 lifting several off and on to work She continued foreman. sought weeks, work and finally quit about two 4, 1970. about December medical attention physician company referred Plaintiff was TenPas, initially Dr. TenPas orthopedist. Dr. following an examina- plaintiff’s injury diagnosed *4 8, 1971, "Impression: as follows: February on tion strain, Low- healing. muscle paravertebral Acute of rupture strain, incomplete possible with back disc.” lumbosacral Company, Peerless employer,
Plaintiff’s 100, dated December Report Injury, of Form filed a Novelty Lizut v R. B. 1970, 4, 1971. It listed date 15, of January 11/16/70, last day worked approximately as "strained 12/4/70, back nature back”, muscles”, by "lifting caused "right side the foreman”. Com- with barrels Ford buckets 24, from November voluntarily pensation paid was on numerous occasions plaintiff Dr. TenPas saw 8, 1971, diagnosis. Her condi- after better and worse. On tion fluctuated between Octo- 14, 1971, improved was so the doctor ber recommended that she return to work but not lift over 20 to 30 Plaintiff had a recurrence of pounds. pain again after that visit and saw doctor stating that she spent on November had in bed. December previous week or two On orthopedist "degeneration recorded a disc, improving”. a lumbosacral which was He saw 27, 1971, her on December and recommended that light she return work on January Plaintiff’s condition recurred wors- steadily until January ened visit to the doctor, reported inability at which time she an appointment do usual housework. At this the doc- suggested orthopedist tor that she consult another and that she consider corrective surgery. disc April investigator
On hired defendant insurance carrier informed Dr. TenPas plaintiff bowling regularly had been since September, 1971. The doctor called and informed her that if she was able to day next be favored bowl that she should able to return to employment. 1,May to return to work about planned
1972, but was to do so because she became unable She did did not lightheaded. return to work but as she was afraid that she would be re- remain *5 199 204 74 Mich Burns, J. by R. B. Dissent TenPas called Dr. her lifting. quired heavy to do plaintiffs normal him foreman who informed lifting. The doctor heavy any work did not entail basis, it this would be "I that on concluded: felt work, long to for return safe to 16 pounds.” didn’t lift more than about 28, on March terminated Compensation was conclusion employer’s the She filed a disability”. pe- was "recovered from 13, 1972, listing hearing July on tition 16, 1970, and May dates as November back, legs nervous maintaining to "injuries system”. the administrative hearing was held before June the judge on June 1973. On granting open award entered a decision
judge opinions In three plaintiff. appealed. Defendants appeal 2 board reversed a vote of 3 to the the award and denied all benefits granted leave appealed by 1976. Plaintiff has appeal this Court. I have concluded that should be reversed. to review the Appeals
For the Court of law, we need question board as a appeal the standard fol- testimony adopted, to know the lowed, in reasoning the board employed by and the v DeGeer Farm reaching its conclusion. DeGeer Co, 96, 101; Equipment 391 Mich 214 NW2d (1974). Security v Employment Leskinen 796 As Commission, (1976), 501; 247 808 NW2d board that a mere statement where not plaintiff "is not disabled” is insufficient any or otherwise related to explained function "While it is not our quoted opinion. board, we weigh evidence before its attempt explain believe the board should it.” on all the evidence before decisions based Lizut v Peerless by B. R. Tavern, Lamb v Mich App John’s 681-682; 195 NW2d We are only mandated to affirm of fact board’s "when those findings by proof’. are supported Johnson v 388, 390; 162 Corp, 381 Vibradamp NW2d *6 controlling opinion Member Marshall’s is clearly inadequate. just He "I do concluded follows: not plaintiff injured believe or that ever herself that back condition developed disabling because activities, of her employment alleged.” As indi- above, however, cated there extensive medical and none of it record even re- motely hints plaintiff original "faked” injury. Member instead Marshall dwells exclu- sively subsequent on the medical of plaintiff status with a particular about concern the fact plaintiff bowling. went None the testimony sup- porting controlling opinion touches on what happened at work on or about November plaintiff conclusion that never suffered an unsupported at work is totally by the rec- ord. I would reverse remand the appeal to more adequately plaintiffs evaluate claims of physical and functional disability suf- fered on November and May to ascertain whether or not has recovered and, so, from disability, if when.