*1 v Fisher 1973] DIVISION, MacKENZIE v FISHER BODY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION op Opinion the Court Compensation Appeal op Finding 1. Workmen’s — and Error — Fact. Findings Compensation Board, Appeals of fact of Workmen’s fraud, in the are absence conclusive where there is evidence them; support conflicting expert testimony where there plaintiff’s disability, several as to the cause of psychiatrist plaintiff’s defendant’s testified that disorder was personality dating youth, caused a board found as a matter of that the was not environment, Appeals caused his work the Court of is bound findings. by Bronson, Compensation Psychoneurotic Percep- 2. Workmen’s — Disorders — tion. plaintiff’s perception indispensable A of bis work environment is compensation attempt in a workmen’s case to an a to establish relationship employment psychoneu- causal between his and a disorder, compensation rotic and workmen’s beneñts should not on be denied the basis a distinction between the subjective perception of the stresses and strains created environment an determination of exist; Compen- whether such stresses or strains the Workmen’s applies legal sation Board a fallacious standard where plaintiff’s perception it fails to consider of his work environ- ment and its determination should be reviewed. Psychoneurotic Percep- 3. Workmen’s — Disorder — tion. Compensation Appeal applied The Workmen’s Board fallacious [2, [1] 58 Am Workmen’s Jur, References Compensation, Compensation, por Points § 255. in Headnotes §§ 529, 530. App 175 op Opinion the Court standard, determining legal the cause of nontrau- psychoneurotic disorder where it failed to matic consider the environment,
plaintiff’s subjective of his work since *2 whether, by standard, question job an not is any pressures employee, for or difficulties but created rather impossible job plain- an situation for whether the created tiff. Compensation Appeal Workmen’s from 11, 1973, 2 April Division
Board. Submitted at 14695.) (Docket 28, Decided June Detroit. No. 1973. —. appeal granted, Leave to presented his K. MacKenzie claim for Harold against the Fisher compensation Body workmen’s Corporation. Compen- Motors of General Division Affirmed. appeals. Plaintiff denied. sation C, plaintiff. P. for Benjamin, & Levine Plunkett, Peacock Cooney, (by Butt & Edward Pedersen, Jr., Nagi), E. and Leonard for defend- K. ant. J., P. and R. B.
Before: Burns and Valkenburg,* JJ. Van Burns, appeal
R. B. J. This is an from the Compensation Appeal Board. inspec- employed Plaintiff was the defendant’s salvage department. responsible He was tion and tagging returning production and defective for require him to parts suppliers. job to His did not or parts decisions defective make whether were not; to be merely tagged parts he those found an them for inspector packaged defective and supplier. return to the * assign- judge, sitting Appeals by Former circuit on the Court of 6, Í963, pursuant in 1968.
ment to Const art 23 as amended § v Fisher Opinion of the Court years before Two or three his retirement began experience anxiety, nervousness, to fatigue At in his work. before the unspecific pressures by referee he referred supervisors, his any specific unable but to relate pressure. any Nor was he able instances specific to cite instances to two who respective him examined on behalf counsel. only specifics testified was the lazy, incompetent, assistant responsibility, responsibility shunned then fall- ing plaintiff, production on and the fact that work- parts rejected already ers tagged used on later shifts often by him. and collected Plaintiff’s sensibilities were offended what considered to be poor product quality the company, manufactured
production incompetent increases, and *3 help by company. and indifferent new hired the complained long history of Plaintiff a of irritabil- ity, appetite, inability sleep. loss of and to These persisted symptoms years even three after his retirement.
Psychiatrists by parties generally called both agreed psychoneurotic problems that had he that was disabled from in an experts industrial environment. The to were unable agree plaintiff’s condition, as to the cause of is, that whether the nervous condition was caus- ally agreed employment. related his Both plaintiff’s
that the condition was one of long standing. psychiatrist
Plaintiff’s testified that the was disabled that his work was the cause of disability. his psychiatrist plaintiff’s
Defendant’s testified that neurotic state was internal and not related to job. App 175 Mich by P.J. the reversed board referee’s appeals
award, and stated: case than Carter. In a different that "This is indeed matter, injured an external force—his case,. plaintiff In this MacKenzie work environment. something from within —that internal was disabled being a disability personality disorder cause of dating know of no youth. We case law that plaintiff’s permit compensation for injurious, when in that work environment as fact a square with fact and perception does not the environ- injurious.” ment is shown not to be (Carter v Case General Motors the Carter In 577; 105 [1960]) Corp, 361 Mich 106 NW2d was a for the only expert psychiatrist who testified that plaintiff. disability He testified pressures produced by emotional was caused line production employment. conflicting there was present
In the case testi- accept The board chose to before the board. mony psychiatrist that testimony defendant’s disability personal- was caused dating to his The board ity youth. back found as a matter of
not caused his work environment. are, in appeals board
Findings of fact of fraud, conclusive, where there is evi absence of Steel them. Dean v Arrowhead support dence Co, Inc, Products App 147 NW2d (1967). findings. This Court is bound
Affirmed. Costs to defendant. *4 J., concurred. Valkenburg,
Van (dissenting). opinion majority P. J. The Bronson, by drawn perpetuates the artificial distinction Believing Board. Fisher v dangerous precedent, opinion establishes this that compelled dissent. I am to. opinion correctly majority cites its
While appeal findings duty fact, board’s to affirm the approach fraud, this obscures the in the absence of appeal. problem the instant raised Since critical parties agree disabled, that both upon controversy focused the issue of becomes plaintiff’s psychoneurotic condition whether was which he was strains to caused exposed the stresses and
during employment or own as enhanced internal mental deterioration aging process. Although both and defend- expert ques- ant offered witnesses answer this tion of mental whether disabilities were plain- related”, "work referee found convincing. tiff’s evidence more Upon appeal board, review the referee’s findings upon following were reversed lan- guage majority approval: which the cites with "This is indeed a different case than In Carter. that matter, injured by an external force—his case, plaintiff work was disabled In this environment. MacKenzie something from within —that internal being personality cause of his dating youth. We know of no case law that permit compensation plaintiff’s perception for injurious, a work perception ment as in environment when square does not with fact and the environ- injurious.”
is shown not to be significance language of this is that it at- tempts distinguish legal principle control- ling mental disabilities v established Carter Corporation, General Motors (1960), upon NW2d 105 the basis that the actual injurious nature of the work environment rather plaintiff’s perception injurious than of its nature is *5 Mich 175 App
controlling. upon language the cited Based the majority the distinction sanctions drawn appeal perception plaintiff’s subjective board between
of stresses and strains created working environment and an deter- mination of whether such stresses or strains exist. inquiry
It is inconceivable should be slight analytical shifted of hand from the ability employee’s disabled leged to withstand the al- injurious conditions to an abstract injurious evaluation of the nature of the work environment. Plaintiff’s environment of his work indispensable attempt is to an relationship establish a causal between his em- ployment ognized disability. The Court in Carter rec- ,interrelationship by quoting phy-
this testimony describing sician’s Carter’s distorted job inquiry view his not whether the in detail. The in Carter was
job pressures created or difficul- any employee, they ties for created an other but whether
impossible given situation for Carter pre-existing infirmity. mental condition or employee’s ability cope job indispens- with his is able to the issue of causation and should not be analytical lost in diversions. unnecessary
The artificial and
distinction drawn
perpetuated majority
the board and
guiding precedent
results in a distortion of
underlying purposes
circumvention of the
of the
Workmen’s
application
IAct. disavow this mis-
controlling legal principles
under
guise
of the board’s shielded factual determi-
applied
nation. Since the board has
a fallacious
legal
by failing
standard
to consider
perception of
environment,
I
re-
work
verse and remand the cause to the board for
Chrysler Corp,
reconsideration. Zaremba v
(1966).
Mich