*1 Arp 10 Mich 174. v. CORNING GLASS COMP SCROGGINS ANY. Opinion of the Court. Compensation Credibility Workmen’s — 1. Board — of Wit- Inferences—Supreme nesses — Court. passes The workmen’s credi- bility of the witnesses and draws its inferences from the cir- established, although and cumstances facts which it finds and appellate court reverse awards for failure of evidence support them, to it is not the trier of the facts. 2. Same —Drunkenness—Work Connection. compensable injury
Once causal connection between a and ensuing established, subsequent drunkenness is disability caused by compensable under workmen’s (CL 1948, 413.12). tion act § Disability 3. Same —Partial —Work Connection —Evidence. Finding of workmen’s board that claimant’s condition, drunken which he was from favored plant guard, as a was caused work-connected injury employed laborer, his as an unskilled held, compensable, was therefore record where claimant testified that he seldom drank before drinking only way and that was the he could find kill pain operation back, which continued after an on his contrary (CL 1948, there was no evidence in the record 413.12). References Points Headnotes [1] [2, 3, [4] 58 Am Workmen’s Am58 5] 58 Am Workmen’s Jur, Jur, Jur, Workmen’s Compensation Compensation Compensation §§ §§ 522, 522, 198. 530-532.
Dissenting Opinion.
Holbrook,
P. J.
'á. Workmen’s
Compensation
op Ap-
—Review
Record
*2
peals.
Appeals
in
reviews
record workmen’s
of
competent
tion cases to determine
there is
if
finding
(CL 1948, 418.IS).
Disability
5.
—Intoxication.
Same —Partial
competent
There was no
evidence in the record
a
to show need
by
compensation
workmen’s
claimant
to imbibe intoxicants to
becoming
the extent
pain; hence,
intoxicated to alleviate his
workmen’s
board that his in-
by compensable injmy
toxication was caused
to his back was
(CL 1948,
not
413.IS).
the record
Appeal
Compensation Appeal
from Workmen’s
Board.
8,
Submitted Division 3
1967,
June
at Grand
(Docket
Rapids.
1,544.)
No.
Decided March 25,
appeal granted July
1968. Leave to
24, 1968. See
benefits of a because back out of and employment. in the plaintiff course of his Award appealed. referee. Defendant Workmen’s Com- pensation ap- Board affirmed. Defendant peals. Affirmed. Zentmyer, plaintiff.
Milton L. for & Robinson, Wilcox for defendant. April plaintiff, J. On McGregor,
an arising a laborer, unskilled incurred back out of the course of his at defend- plant. day May ant’s The last he worked was 26, earning 1955. Plaintiff had been for $65 40-hour the Court. compensation voluntarily paid Defendant week. plaintiff went plaintiff the time until for most of September 20, 1956, employment, on to favored During guard. plant greater wage, aas at a working, under- he was not when interval went surgery onhis back. discharged the 1963, defendant
On December influence intoxicants under the for while work. hearing application for then made Plaintiff compensation, contending adjustment of claim relationship between was a causal that there injury. original drinking problem and After hearing hearing entered an referee plaintiff which affirmed of the was in favor award appeal ap- workmen’s board. On appeal plication to this Court, leave to case to the to make a remanded *3 plaintiff’s discharge. the reason for In of fact as to response, returned the board opinion: January cause the above entitled “On for a of fact as to to this board was remanded employ- plaintiff was
the reason 28, 1963. ment with the defendant on December Ap- pursuance “In of said order of Michigan, peals finds this board as of the State discharged by of fact that a matter under the influence of intoxicat- beverages at work. bring to the Board would like to “The following testimony found attention of Court the pages and 15 of the record: on you prior your injury drink 1955? “,‘Q. Did “ Very ‘A. seldom. “ your you ‘Q. After did drink an increase quantity? “ ground object I ‘Mr. Wilcox: will to this that it is immaterial. op the Court. “ might ‘Mr. I Robinson: think it have some hear- ing. “ [sic]: ‘The Court Go ahead. “ yonr drinking point ‘Q. quan- Did increase in
tity frequency your injury? after “‘A. Yes. you your “‘Q. Will state reason for the drink- ing? “ “ “ object ‘Mr. Wilcox: I will ‘Mr.Robinson: ‘The Court not relevant. —it’s I think it is. [sic]: I’ll take it. “‘Q. You answer. “ pain during ‘A. I had a lot of that time, and only way pain.
that’s the I could find to kill the “ pain your operation? ‘Q. Did this continue after “ ‘A. itYes, did.’ testimony “This demonstrates to our satisfaction disability originated personal that the with the in- jury. It is our firm conviction has con- wage-earning capacity tinues to suffer a loss of due job-incurred injury, injury pre- ato conceded which cipated discharge.” which led to his contrary The record shows no evidence. appeals ruling
Defendant and contends that appeals plaintiff’s the condition that the drunken originated with his earlier work-connected injury is not the record. - scope review of decision of the work- men’s ited board on review is lim- (Stat CL 413.12 Ann 1960 Rev 17.186): “The of fact made acting powers, commission within its in' shall, *4 supreme of fraud, absence be conclusive, but the power questions shall court have to review of law any involved final decision or determination of compensation said commission.” allegation In bar, the case there is no of fraud only point disputing and the is is the Mich
178 Coijet. the drinking question alcoholic whether the of factual It is problem work-connected. clear was compensation prevailing in workmen’s the trend that a drink- connection between that once a causal law is ing factually compensable injury is and a disability subsequent caused established, then compensable. drinking problem is drugs used held where that, cases have “Several compensable injury to nar- led of a treatment ensuing conse- alcoholism, cotics addiction quences compensable.” Larson, 1 were Workmen’s (1966). p Compensation Law, §13.21, 192.86 necessary repeat may we have what “It not be frequently does not that this Court review said so except to determine board, of fact of the the whether there any support the award. evidence to may may circum be it be direct; The evidence not passes only not on the credibil stantial. ity from witnesses, but draws its inferences finds estab and the facts which it circumstances a failure We reverse awards lished. not are the triers them, but we approach in mind, this view we of the facts. With case.” Thornton Luria- v. consideration (1956), Mich Dumes-Co-Venture Meyers Michigan quoting’ Central R. Co. (1917), 134, 137, 138. 199Mich Chrysler Corpo-
Appellant argues that Garrett v. compensation (1953), in which ration employee re- after was denied voluntary peated a com- injury pensable that should dictates In Garrett how- in this case. denied be finding by the com- no workmen’s ever, there was pensation of causal connection between commission subsequent original intoxication. *5 179 v. Opinion the Court. voluntary “His was the reason for discharge, physical resulting and not his condition voluntary injuries. His from his several acts of indicating caused his moral drunkenness, * * * turpitude, were the efficient cause of the Chrys- employment.” termination of his Garrett Corporation, supra, p ler at 194.
In the instant board found that job-incurred injury precipitated appellee’s drink- and that there was a direct causal con- injury, drinking problem nection between the employee’sdischarge. and the statutory we like it or
Whether this not, dilemma impales upon us one horn. If different result is legislature say. a better it is result, to There the board’s required fact, Court is to and affirm does appeals appellee. decision board. Costs to J., concurred with McGregor, J. Burns, (dissenting). My judges Holbrook, P. J. brother quote Compensation Larson, Workmen’s Law, p position. supporting 13.21, 192.86,as their distinguishable cases cited in Larson are their from case hand. In the most favorable Maryland Casualty therein, case cited Fennell v. Company (1961), employee (344 352), 208 Tenn 116 SW2d pain
suffered a back operation. drugs prescribed by When his doctor whisky were exhausted he substituted in nonintox- icating pain. Compensation doses to ease the development hepatitis awarded when the of acute to addition the immediate malnutrition, causes causally prior death, were found related to the injury. Dissenting J. by Holbkook, n ** * lie testified that witnesses “Numerous whisky enough him as [Fennell] class never took its under influence ever to he found alcoholic noticeable Rev. Church- that was to the extent it *6 (other pastor, or wit father, to his
well, his
Maryland
testified).”
Cas
Fennell v.
nesses who
ualty
Company,
116, 119.
Tenn
Fennell, was
unlike
herein,
Plaintiff
being
under
favored
his
beverages
intoxicating
at
while work.*
influence of
fact
does not review
that this Court
It is true
appeal
Yet a fundamental
board.
of the
principle
the record
be reviewed
remains, viz.:
sup-
competent
if there
to determine
Pigue
port
v. General Motors
of facts.
competent
(1947),
Corporation