*1 Rentz v CORPORATION, RENTZ v GENERAL FISHER MOTORS BODY DIVISION, PLANT FLEETWOOD Opinion of the Court Entry Hospital Hearsay—Business 1. — Evidence — Records —Gen- Description Diagnosis. eral — hospital judicial proceedings record admissible as a entry general description business if the record contains of a diagnosis. if it condition but not contains a Rigid Reasonably 2. Evidence —Administrative Law — Rules — Pru- dent Men —Conduct of Affairs. Evidentiary rulings proceedings may stray in administrative rigid evidence; courtroom rules on in contested cases before an agency give proba- administrative a fact finder admit and type commonly upon by tive effect to evidence of a reasonably prudent in the men conduct their affairs. Compensation Findings 3. Workmen’s — Board —Evidence— Opinion Hearsay—Medical Diagnosis. — Compensation Appeal A Workmen’s Board decision that a work- job supported by competent, man’s was not illness related was material and substantial evidence where it was based on deposition opinion related, job that the illness was not was in turn based on another doctor’s written describing the illness but which contained no illness, the cause of and where there was further evi- working given by plant in the dence the conditions area foreman.
[1] [2] [3-5] Admissibility Admissibility 29 Am 40 Am Jur 82 Am Jur Workmen’s patient. accident Jur 2d, 2d, 38 ALR2d 778. in which References 2d, Hospitals Evidence hospital patient record §§ record for Points Asylums sustained 42. relating relating in Headnotes §§ injury. to -intoxication or to cause or circumstances 42, 43. 568. ALR2d 553. sobriety Opinion of the Court Kelly, J.
Dissent M. Hearsay Appeal Board — — Evidence —Workmen’s —Preserving Motions—Appeal and Error. Question — *2 improp- Appeal Compensation was Board decision Workmen’s erly grounded of the record and should not outside on evidence (1) objection upheld was a valid recorded where: on plaintiffs by of based on a to the admission counsel upon; objection hearsay report, ruled never medical which (2) portions properly moved strike of counsel hearsay report, motion based defendant’s brief on that (3) impliedly granted; then erro- and objections disputed dispite neously upon evidence its decision. Appeal and Error —Workmen’s —Evidence—Pre- serving Question, Appeals reviewing decision the Workmen’s of a of Court arguments Compensation Appeal not entertain on Board radiologist’s report a condition or described whether a was not below. medical where that issue raised Ap- from the Workmen’s 10, 1976, at Detroit. peal May Board. Submitted 25170.) (Docket 21, July 1976. Leave No. Decided denied, 398 Mich 804. Motors against Claim John Rentz Division, Corporation, Body Fisher Fleetwood Plant, Com- compensation workmen’s benefits. for appeals denied. Plaintiff leave pensation Affirmed. granted. Meklir, A.
Samuel plaintiff. for Sima, Wallace A. Jr. and Willard W. Ronald (Frazer Hilder, counsel), for defendant. Kelly Maher, J., M. P. and M. R.
Before: Riley, D. JJ. C. Riley, J. Plaintiff appeals
D. C. leave 1975, Work- decision and order June Rentz v General Opinion Court Compensation Appeal reversing Board, men’s hearing referee, order that had awarded plus compensable $10,500 interest for lung disability. arguments appellate
Plaintiff’s are directed solely question to a substantive evidence. Plain argues tiff the decision the board is not competent evidence, based because the decision grounded deposition testimony, aon doctor’s partially which in turn was based on a fellow report accompanying doctor’s written only heart. We need concern ourselves propriety with the substantive of the board’s con deposed sideration of the reliance report. parties raise, do not nor need we any irregularities procedural allegedly address, arising in the board’s consideration the evid ence.1 *3 part proceedings,
As of the defendant introduced deposition of Dr. Melvin Dr. Lester. Lester plaintiff’s lung concluded that condition was at- degeneration plaintiff’s tributable a natural years heart, life, the result of his 74 rather than any impurities working atmosphere. due in his conclusion, In his Dr. Lester a referred to report accompanying X-ray plaintiff’s an report prepared by taking the doctor X-ray, Wanger, a Dr. a staff member of clinic a supervised by Dr. Lester. The contained Dr. Wanger’s description larged”. plaintiff’s heart as "en- description
Dr. Lester referred to this stating proposed etiology his ailments. opinion,
Plaintiff claims that Dr. Lester’s decision, hence the board must fall Dr. because 1 very fact that on a of evidence certain bit they suggests reject specific us that did intend to bit of that question. suspect plaintiff agrees admissible evidence now in We that us, for he does not mention this issue raised the dissent. App
252 249 70 Mich op Opinion the Court on inadmissible based hear Lester’s report. say, Wanger’s However, Bond v i.e., Green (1971), App 41, 43; 731 wood, 190 NW2d 34 Mich judicial proceedings, clearly that a establishes entry as a business record is admissible if 600.2146; 27A.2146 the rec under MCLA MSA description physical general of a ord contains "a diagnosis”. distinguished condition, from a 34 report, App at 43. The supervised by Lester, member of the staff diagnosis a statement of condi not tion. a nature of but diagnosis "discovery of the is the source of patient’s illness or the determination of the study symp from a of the his disease (4th ed), Dictionary toms”. 540.2 "En Black’s Law larged” says properly etiology little about and is more adjective,
considered a factual albeit re quiring physical perceptual approximation. some Most require degree
descriptions per some ceptual flexibility.3 Bay City, App
We note that in Wade v
(1975),
581;
("diagnosis” symptoms” "analysis is "examination of the (Emphasis supplied.) facts”. panel difficulty drawing The fact has some physical condition/diagnosis line illustrates the attractiveness 1972) (6th Evidence, 12:12, ed, proposed p rule (admit in 2 Jones on 363-364 *4 hospital "conjectural” in records "of all statements unless nature”). Evidence, 290, pp See also McCormick on 612- technical 613. take accomplish adopt proposals, those We need not commentator’s but we do previously employed note certain ruses this Court has Miller, 649; purposes. E.g., App similar Kuhnee v 37 Mich (1972), Co, Seven-Up Bottling App 195 299 v NW2d Boudrie 40 Mich (1972). 686; 199 539 NW2d 253 Rentz v Opinion of the Court point may A further Bond made. and Wade judicial report hearsay discuss in a set ting. evidentiary rulings It is now established that proceedings may stray rigid in administrative E.g., courtroom rules on evidence. Viculin v De partment Service, 375, 403; of Civil 386 Mich 192 (1971). fact, NW2d In contested cases before agency, an administrative a fact-finder admit give probative type and commonly effect to "evidence of a upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs”. MCLA 24.275; (175). reasonably MSA 3.560 not then a Should prudent person relying finding feel safe on and description "enlarged relevance in the heart” is physician, particularly physi sued when the supervisor-doctor ques cian’s to answer procedures employed tions about the rely X-ray report, clinic? If a doctor would can it be said that a on the prudent reasonably person would not?4
Finally, accepted we note that the board plant foreman, credible aof familiar plaintiff’s working area, that there atmospheric debris area. This testi- mony supports, establishes, that if not defense plaintiff experienced breathing ailments because of age. his Our examination of record indicates the decision of the Workmen’s Appeal competent, Board was based on material Reynolds and substantial evidence. Gilbert v Met- (1975). Co, 62; als NW2d Affirmed. No costs. We refer to Act Administrative Procedures rules of evidence
Section, 24.275; 3.560(175), only analogy. MCLA MSA We do not suggest mean to that cases before the Workmen’s identically Board are be conducted to "contested cases” 24.203; under 3.560(103). the Administrative Procedures Act. MCLA MSA *5 70 J. J.
Dissent M. Kelly, by Maher, J., R. M. P. concurred. good (dissenting). ais This exam- M. J. J. Kelly, imbroglio. compensation
ple of a workmen’s (Melvin deposition A. doctor’s The defendant’s Lester) depo- January 30, At that was taken attorney thoroughly and sition, well the objections preserved review, the admission for X-ray report: (Plaintiff's attorney): x-ray Who is this Meckler "Mr. report by doctor? Wanger. "A. Dr. F. William Well, to object I will the doctor’s "Mr. Meckler: then x-rays he testimony testify- and he had the unless hearsay report ing to of Dr. opposed himself as Wanger. Wallace) Doctor, "Q. attorney]: (By Mr. [Defendant’s x-ray writing your you Wanger’s
did report use Dr. coming your and in final re- gard Mr. Rentz?
"A. Yes. your objection has noted on Okay, "Mr. been Wallace: the record counsel. object to the "Mr. Meckler: Then I would have hearsay according testimony is based testimony.
his own Right. objection has been "Mr. Wallace: All Your noted.” immediately
The first mention excerpt. quoted the above follows 13, 1973, before On March when the depositions concluded, all had been referee and by deposition was admitted the referee Lester’s objections "subject to At contained therein”. time 4 which were the same hospital exhibits hospitals also records from different were v General Rentz Dissent M. J. admitted, and these were admitted "under Entry any Business Statute”. There was never dialogue concerning entry admissibility business deposition objections on the mony. to Dr. Lester’s testi- any ruling,
There never either refereé or board. receiving plain- brief,
After the defendant’s *6 tiff, 26, 1975, on or about March filed with the Compensation Appeal Board, Workmen’s a motion portions strike certain defendant’s brief on grounds they the entry were in violation the business properly
rule and not evidence before the appeal paragraphs objected board. of the One containing paragraph was the Dr. Lester’s testi- mony enlarged hearing about Instead of appeal motion, the the board wrote at- torney quote: a letter I receipt your
"We are in recently filed motion in captioned the above matter. acting upon time, "Rather than same at the
the matter will panel be referred the of Board eventually members to whom this assigned. case is If it is arguments found that predicating defendant on evidence, material not arguments those will fall when case comes under active review.” panel to whom the matter was submitted specifically prescinded objections considering plaintiff’s following pronunciamento:
with the argues part "Plaintiff that certain records upon were admitted into evidence defendant’s motion purposes for the limited set forth in MCLA 600.2146 and that the matters may contained therein used studiously otherwise. Our will avoid all of these objectionable.” areas which finds to be What does that mean? If one no reads far and 70 by M.J. Dissent that the board
farther, conclude one would impliedly, plaintiff, least all at ruled in favor allegedly objectionable However, matters. these quotes specifi- pages later two cally on which then Dr. Lester finding: bases its Wallace): Doctor, Now, effect, what
”Q. Okay. (By Mr. and the arterialscler- any, enlarged if heart could the of chronic have on otic heart disease [sic] disease, moderate? pulmonary obstructive inefficiently functioning patient "A. has When enlarged pressure which I alluded heart the back lungs. ventilation lead to abnormal before Again lungs longer adequately.” function operative finding board’s follows:
" * * * explained lung problems are Plaintiff’s from which he problem basis pulmo- produced This his chronic obstructive suffered. *7 environment. Plaintiff’s and not the work nary disease problems, we on the basis Dr. Lester’s conclude aging product proc- the natural testimony, were ess.” enlarged reading My
.. of the record isolates the X-ray report diagnosis to the which heart find doctor did Lester relied on. The not depo- enlarged physician Another whose ¡ taken, not consider as sition was who we belonging parties, to either also hospi- during finding heart a 1969 enlarged talization. question majority is
The
error
radiologist’s report
of whether
described
diagnosis.
physical
I
condition or a medical
do
Rentz v General
Dissent M. J.
easy
it so
find
conclude that an
general
description
is
condition
Greenwood, 34
within
Bond v
43;
(1971), ruling.
I would reverse the finding and reinstate the decision of the ref- respects eree in all competent, as I evidence, find no other support otherwise,
material or ruling except board’s evidence ex- pressly discarded.