*1 v. 1963]
SMITH LAWRENCE BAKING COMPANY. Compensation Injury Single 1. Workmen’s — Not Due to Event— Employer. Last occupational The portion compensation of the workmen’s requires act that compensation disability for thereunder be from the recovered last employee who in nature which the disease was due and in contracted, injury which it was being the time else- in where defined single ease the is not attributable to a event as the last in in work which employee was last pecul- the characteristic and iar disability being from able earn wages full (CLS 1956, 412.1; at 417.1, CL § §§ 417.2, 417.9). op 2. Courts —Stare Decisis —Construction Statutes. usually Stare decisis policy, the wise because in most matters important applicable it is more that the rule of be law settled right, than that it settled but decision an act approach dignity does not interpretation. of well settled Compensation- Employers 3. Workmen’s —Out-of-State —Jurisdic- tion. may workmen’s act not be said to apply outside of State this over whom State jurisdiction. has no Bakery Employee Injury Liability op 4. Same — —Back — Last Michigan Employer. Liability incurred while bread- bun-wrapping wrapping machines defendant bakeries continuous, activity uninterrupted, in which there was and ex- Referenoes for Points Headnotes [1, Jur, Compensation 58 Am Workmen’s 246. §§ (cid:127)< Jur, 14 Am 58 Am 58 Am Courts 66. [2] [3] [5] § Jur, Compensation 36. Workmen’s Compensation Jur, Workmen’s Michigan-Reports. bending turning, twisting, ultimately back that cessive continuing imposed sueh work is resulted bakery State, upon employer in this where there is *2 testimony support ample of disablement and that Michigan employers plaintiff’s injury (CLS had notice 417.2, 417.9). §§417.1, 1956, §412.1; CL Compensation —Briefs. 5. Costs —Workmen’s plaintiff defendant-appellant, and Costs are awarded both imposed by liability compensation for workmen’s where solely upon compensation appeal board the next the workmen’s found Michigan employer plaintiff, whom the board to last disability, Supreme Court primarily responsible and for the liability upon employer, hav- imposes there having parties ing State, out of the all been other 417.2, (CLS 1956, §412.1; §§417.1, CL filed briefs 417.9). JJ., Kelly, dissenting. Carr, C. J., Dethmers and and Compensation Appeal Appeal from Workmen’s (Calendar 7, 1962. No. Board. December Submitted 49,833.) May 9, No. Decided 125, Docket against claim Lawrence filed his Harold G. Smith Company, Employers Baking employer, Mutual Company, Baking Company, Liability insurer, Gauss Company, employer, in- Auto-Owners Insurance per- compensation because of surer, for workman’s occupational from or sonal disablement damage causing to his deterioration with determination back. Award by Baking paid Com- claim defendants Lawrence appeal. pany who Re- carrier, and its insurance im- that order enter with direction versed Baking posing liability Company and its on Gauss insurance carrier. (Lee amis, Dr Dramis, Bralce & Werbelotv G.
Sinas, plaintiff. counsel), Nayer (Travis, George Warren S E. Ganos Nayer, counsel), Barry Law- for defendants M. Baking v. Lawrence Baking Company Employers Mutual rence Company. Liability Warner, defendants Hart & G-auss
Warner, Company Baking and Auto-Owners Insurance Com pany. Baking Defendants Lawrence Com- J. Kavanagh, Liability Company ap- Employers
pany peal plaintiff Mutual compensation an award of benefits to by ap- tbe workmen’s made peal granted modified and affirmed award which board
by hearing referee. employed by Lawrence Com- Plaintiff job May Lansing pany 1955. His turning, twisting, wrapper continuous involved bread bending. While *3 worked hours bun-wrapping bread-wrapping machines. both plaintiff’s prior 19, 1957, to June 6 months Some bothering began him. On June back pain requested bakery owner, that he was such him a Mr. to allow off. Jeffries Jeffries, Mr. by chiropractor. Treatment him to a referred plain- chiropractor but trouble, not alleviate did subsequently lost time to work. He tiff continued from work because of the back trouble. Company Baking was sold to defendant- Company Baking appellee November, 1957. G-auss bread-wrapping a work on continued to Plaintiff by requests After numerous machine Gauss. dough-divider plaintiff machine to a he was switched require bending job did not fall of 1958. This in the up. Plaintiff left let trouble and his back over, July Company Gauss plaintiff for the August to work went of 1959 In Baking Company Louis, Missouri, at Kroger St. set-up re- wrapper man. Plaintiff was machine a Reports. quired to machines, move various which were on by pushing began rollers, them. His back to bother again job him a result he left this after 2 months. Myers
In October, went to work for Baking Company Jonesboro, at Arkansas, bread-wrapping a to work he machine. This work was identical at had done Gauss and Lawrence. His pain. back continued cause After he had worked Myers tripped at and fell about 3 he weeks, over an air hose
against a falling table and onto the In floor. against portion the table he struck the lower of his cage edge rib towards the back on the of the table. get up he pain When started to he noticed he had extending hip from his to his knee. His Molesky, him sent to a Dr. who told him to take a bothering week or off work. Because his back was poor wages him and receiving because he was money Arkansas, he wired his mother for Lansing. returned He made no claim for work- against Myers men’s in Arkansas .because he could not afford to re- main there and because he “didn’t understand the legal technicalities.”
Following Lansing, his return to including sulted several doctors, Dr. William myelogram, diagnosed Meade. ruptured a Dr. Meade did subsequently operated, removing disc and Shortly instability the disc. thereafter, because spine, performed a fusion for stabilization was Badgley. operation graft Dr. W. O. bone plate and a were fused to lumbosacral *4 spine. alleged personal Plaintiff’s claim occupational or disablement from regard specified the alternative; and, in to each, back brought by put trouble the use his back had been Baking Company to while at Lawrence and Gauss Baking v. Lawrence that The referee found injury arising personal out of and in the received employment with Lawrence on Novem- of his course on December 1958. and with Gauss ber day plaintiff was the last date 1,1957, The November 30, 1958, and Lawrence December for worked the date Gauss machine. fered a dough-divider him to the switched plaintiff suf- found that The referee also disability and due to causes peculiar to the of and characteristic that the Lawrence. He ordered both Gauss and with by exposure the 2 on the basis shared paying carrier its insurance of Lawrence and and 2/3 paying carrier and its insurance Gauss 1/3. compensation appeal appeal to the workmen’s On opinion, in a found that unanimous board, the work for Lawrence the board, constituted symp- primary principal cause of subsequent modified the toms and place to the entire burden referee’s award so as compensation findings upon Lawrence. The board’s respect injury are with time of the nature and summarized follows: regular performed “The work which period May during rigorous very November in strenuous required It and continuous nature. constant interruption bending, twisting turning without prolonged periods day day. in- after This work greater hazard far volved a of hack than general. Plaintiff’s encountered appeared symptoms back prior provided first 6 months some 1957. treatment then to June Medical dis- failed to alleviate tressing condition. The for Lawrence plain- primary principal stituted the cause of disability. symptoms subsequent Plaintiff
tiff’s has totally unquestionably No- since been disabled vember *5 Michigan Reports. plaintiff operated bread-wrapping a
“It is that true from 1,1957, machine for Gauss ber machine and tributing November to Decem- type a However, this was different significantly a was not factor in connection with back disability. and appears may “It that the actual disc herniation have occurred at the time of the accident Arkan- degeneration sas. But the which made the ultimate rupture place during took much inevitable earlier plaintiff’s employment by the course of Lawrence. ‘accusing finger’ pointed The is at continuous, uninterrupted, twisting, turning, and excessive and bending place during period which took that employment.” finger” “accusing
The board’s use the term testimony Badgley a reference of Dr. in answer following questions: to the you opinion “Q. Are able to an formulate toas repeated twisting whether or not bending (plaintiff) engaged which he to the extent related working while at Lawrence and Gauss Com- pany, played causing a the condition of the ruptured operated by disc which was Dr. Meade? opinion. I Yes, “A. have you opinion please? “Q. Would state that parts. “A. about First of that a all, twisting bending amount of tremendous which I have testified other occasions is a matter fraying rope fray- or a cable. The fact that it was ing produce beginning symptoms or for which which ruptured he was treated and he later, disc his gather your Ias remarks, was a blow the the against back, not a fall. He fell back table and table degener- hit his back. I would assume that the ation of the annulus fibrosis occurred while he was twisting job bending on this excessive rupture final was inevitable due weakness point To annulus. make it I would short, v. Lawrence twisting bending accusing finger excessive at the period during of time.” that dispute the litigants suit do in this plaintiff has appeal board, *6 referee injury within personal is disabled suffered pay forms the meaning should the act. Who of the controversy. The answer present the of basis depend whether question not does this Kroger or or or Gauss employment with Lawrence principal primary cause Myers the constituted specifically disability. symptoms The act of his defines determination for the basis a much different liability. employer of part § of workmen’s 7, 9, of first sentence The provides: compensation act be recoverable due shall total “The employee employer who last from the in the the disease the nature of which (CL 1948, it contracted.” in which was due and 17.228].)* § [Stat § 1960 Bev Ann 417.9 § portion 9, consider- 7, of pertinent provisions given of to other
ation must be the statute. § date time and of the act establishes the follows:
Part of injury’ injury’ of 'time of or 'date
“The term in the of a or in this shall case act used the case single injury to a event of an attributable in which work in the the last of subjected employee to the conditions was last disability (CLS § 412.1 death.” or 17.151].) Bev'§ [Stat Ann 1960 tutional The did not [*] subsequent change apportionment Trellsite amendment language provisions part 7, Enterprise Foundry, quoted this section § 9, namely, sentence. were PA 365 Mich held unconsti No 209. 189, Reports. provides: § of the act
Part in this act: used “Whenever “(a) ‘disability’ The word means state of earning wages being full at the disabled from employee in which the * * * disability; resulting in “(c) ‘personal injury’ The term shall include a disability disease or which is due to causes and con- peculiar ditions which characteristic of to out are the business of the and which arises employment.” (CL of and in the course of the 17.220].) § [Stat 417.1 Ann 1960 Rev Part the act reads: employee resulting “The disablement of an such disease or shall be treated as the personal happening meaning within the procedure practice provided of this act and the apply proceedings in this act shall to all under this *7 part, except specifically provided where otherwise (CL §417.2 [Stat herein.” Ann 1960 Rev §17.221].) The work in which “was last disability” the conditions and from which earning wages” he is “disabled from full is the work incident to bun-wrapping bread- and/or namely, turning, twisting, bending machines, the body required employment. other movements such question There is no but that the “is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic peculiar employer”— of and to the business of the bakery the business—and arose “out of and in the employment.” course the findings appeal Prom the appears of the it board the that date of the was fixed as November day plaintiff 1957, the last worked for Lawrence The referee found that personal also sustained a on December 30, 177 v. bread-wrapping operated he last the machine, Company. for Gauss legislature as ex- intent of the part Court in pressed 9, of the this statute, Wagner Co., Mich re- v. LaSalle commission that of the versed the employer” “employer” “Michigan means term “employer employed” last means who term employed.” “Michigan employer last Court who (p 197): stated of the various of to
“From an examination sections to, as referred Court comes act, the the conclusion above legislature that the that the intended jurisdiction have and should exer- commission would cise jurisdiction in last under a case of this nature upon provided, employer, that such employer employer; and where, awas employer in this case, the last Michigan, without lacked said commission State jurisdiction an award.” make lightly decisions do overrule settled We standing struing any Wagner Had of a statute. section represented views unanimous Case resolving might to overrule Court, we hesitate pointedly said so case Brandéis since, Justice Co., Oil & Gas US Burnet Coronado 815): (52 L Ct ed S usually policy, because wise “Stare decisis ap- important that the
in most it is more matters plicable it settled than that rule of law be settled right.” simply postponed
Wagner’s a final dissent, however, *8 Wagner’s interpretive ma- if even decision. And jority unanimous, we view had been rendered thereby necessarily “one since not bound would approach the does not decision an act interpretation.” White dignity See of a settled well Michigan Reports. 178 370 Country (62 Club, v. Winchester 315 US 32, S Ct 619), quoting following 425, L86 ed United Raynor, (58 States 540, US S Ct 413). L ed For the reasons stated Justice Talbot Smith opinion Wagner dissenting in his in v. LaSalle Foundry supra, majority Co., we conclude the Wagner opinion part reading in in was in error into compensation §7, of9, the workmen’s words, act the “provided, Michigan that such last was a employer.” The act under consideration ais Michi- gan act. It deals with workmen and Michigan working Michigan prob- conditions and Clearly, legislature lems. the did not have in mind employers outside the State over whom it would jurisdiction. have no majority Wagner opinion v. LaSalle supra, hereby part is Co., reversed, and compensation workmen’s act inter-
preted legislature to read as the intended —“The total due shall be recoverable Michigan employer employed employee who last in the the nature which the disease due and in which it was contracted.” part applying case, instant Michigan employer who last in the to the nature of which the disease and in due, which it was contracted, was Gauss § Likewise, the act must be read as follows: injury’ injury’ “The term ‘time of or ‘date of used this act shall the case of disease or in single case to a attributable Michigan employ- event be the of work in the employee ment in which the was last or death.” *9 Baking Lawrence v. of in this ease was date Therefore, plaintiff: operated December Baking bread-wrapping for Com- machine Gauss pany. ample the record discloses An examination testimony support the of disable-
medical question that the be no can There ment. injury. had notice appeal November board dated The order compen- provides it insofar is reversed Company paid to be sation An as November the date fixes liability weekly imposing all enter shall order hospital surgical, care medical, benefits solely upon and its insurance Gauss carrier. defendant-appellant Law-
Costs rence Smith, JJ., with concurred
Black, Souris, J. Kavanagh, holding (dissenting). Under the Dethmers, J. Wagner Co., LaSalle
this Court herein is liable of defendants neither set Mich appeal should plaintiff. board order of denying com- enter order should An be reversed. pensation. J., concurred Deth- with J.,
Carr, C. Kelly, mebs, J. of this case. decision no took J.,
O’Hara,