Thomas v. Chrysler Corp.
418 N.W.2d 96
Mich. Ct. App.
1987
Check Treatment

*1 Corp Chrysler v CHRYSLER CORPORATION THOMAS 1987, 14, May at Decided No. Submitted Detroit. Docket 95386. 5, denied, August appeal Leave to 880. 1987. Plaintiff, Thomas, Foundry began working at Huber Willis R. defendant, Corporation, July, Approxi- in 1973. of later, plaintiff developed mately three weeks a skin one to periods of caused him miss work for various condition which to 23, day April Defendant time. His last of work was 1979. voluntarily paid plaintiff benefits for some of the periods plaintiff working, of work. When ceased defen- missed paying voluntary dant ceased workers’ began paying accident dis- and instead sickness and extended pays ability group employees for benefits via its insurer which petition filed a a work- nonwork-related conditions. Plaintiff for compensation hearing and, following hearing, the referee ers’ 24, open beginning April granted an award of benefits 1979, Upon plus necessary expenses. reasonable award, Compensation Appeal review of the Workers’ part. finding plaintiff’s wcab, Board reversed it employment most an of with defendant caused at exacerbation aggravate plaintiff’s symptomatology and did cause or the time limited the of benefits to 23, 1979, applied period April 1979. of June Appeals appeal. The issued an the Court for leave to Court of appeal, granted denial order leave vacated which wcab’s further and remanded to wcab benefits to proceedings ground was evidence to indicate on the that there possible that a have existed between causal connection No. March and his condition. Docket remand, condition 1985. On the found that skin life, not been that the condition had _was References 290-295, 2d, seq.; Compensation 613- 509 et Am Jur Workmen’s §§ 617, 641, 642. sensory organ Sufficiency proof resulted condition of skin or pre-existing in suit than from from accident or incident rather 446. condition. 2 ALR3d pre-existing physical Pleading aggravating 32 ALR2d condition. by plaintiff’s employment, or accelerated and that totally recovered from the skin condition as of June 1979. determined that was not entitled to 11, 1979, after June since the medical *2 inadvisability working specific job at a was not sufficient to render an individual disabled in the field of common labor. subsequent application appeal Plaintiff’s for leave to to the Appeals 90312, April Court of was denied. Docket No. Thereafter, applied appeal Supreme he for leave to to the Supreme Court, leave, granting Court. The in lieu of remanded Appeals granted. Court of for consideration as on leave 426 Mich Appeals The Court of held: applied appropriate legal the standard. Plaintiff proving did not meet his employment burden of that his caused underlying condition; or his at most caused an symptomatology. exacerbation only plaintiff’s Where it is symptoms, condition, underlying not his ag- which have been gravated by employment, plaintiff his is entitled to a closed only. award of persuasion benefits Plaintiff had the burden of regarding question acquired the of fact of where he the condi- tion. The determined that condition was an ordinary disease of life. Affirmed. J., Shepherd, noting concurred with the result there adequate evidence for the to find that the was cured as of June 11, 1979, and that therefore the award should be agree closed as of that date. He does not the supports evidence the conclusion that the disease in was an disease in life. He if believes that underlying had an clearly aggravated by condition it was workplace. that, cured, He noted simply now that problem has go a in that he not back to his former condition, however, because of his is not a problem by compensation that has been addressed the workers’

statutes. Compensation Appeal — Findings — 1. Workers’ of Fact. Findings by Compensation Appeal of fact the Workers’ Board will by Appeals not be any overturned the Court of where there is competent support them; findings evidence to such are conclu- (Const sive absent fraud art 28; MCL 418.861; MSA § 17.237[861]). Compensation Appeal. — 2. Workers’ Appeals may The Compensation Court of examine a Workers’ Corp legal application Appeal for of correct standards Board decision fact-finding to the board further and reverse and remand applied an erroneous law where the board and conclusions of legal standard. Compensation — Evidence. 3. Workers’ must cases The in all successful workers’ claimant personal by preponderance a a of the evidence both establish relationship injury injury and the work- between place. Compensation — Closed Award Benefits. 4. Workers’ only compensation plaintiff to a closed is entitled A workers’ plaintiffs symptoms, only not it is where aggravated by have been which employment. Injury. Compensation — Work-Related 5. Workers’ provide compensation not law does workers’ person or an illness or disease caused for a afflicted conditions; aggravated by working nor is a different his work or progressed required has result because *3 pain injury; or unless the worker cannot work without where illness, aggravated or or the disease the work has accelerated it, work, and, thus, coupled to deterioration contributed or deterioration, illness, an or in fact causes with the injury, payable. is not Compensation Findings — of Fact. 6. Workers’ regarding Compensation Appeal Findings Board of the Workers’ employ- particular disability exists and whether a whether are a condition to ment has findings of fact. Muller, Paul D. plaintiff. for Marcinkoski), Lacey M. & Jones Gerald for (by defendant. Shepherd P.J., Walsh, and D. F. and

Before: JJ. Doctoroff, time us a second This case is before

Per Curiam. Compen- from order of Workers’ appeal on ap- initially Board. When Appeal sation plied to appeal, this Court for leave to we vacated the wcab’s denial benefits to him and remanded ground this case for further proceedings there was evidence to indicate that a possible causal connection have existed between his and his condition. The on re- mand, however, reaffirmed its denial of benefits on slightly grounds. different then applied again to this Court Thereafter, leave to appeal, which we denied. he applied for leave to to appeal Supreme Court. Court, leave, in lieu of granting this remanded case to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. 426 Mich 857 We affirm. Plaintiff began working at defendant’s Huber Foundry July, During hours, 1973. working his oil, exposed grease very and hot temperatures. Approximately one three weeks beginning after employment, developed pim- ples. The pimples spread increasingly and covered face, shoulders, his arms and ultimately his entire A recurring body. pattern developed such that work, when would take time off from skin up; cleared work, when he return would the skin condition would return. Plaintiff missed 7, 1975, work from 2, 1976; November to March 12, 1976, 18, 1979; June to February and March to March 1979. His day last work was April

During years re- employment, inpatient ceived both outpatient and treatment. 7, 1975, 2, 1976, From November to March 12, 1976, 18, 1979, June to February defendant *4 voluntarily paid plaintiff benefits of $130 per week. Plaintiff to began receive extended dis- November, 1979, ability in benefits and re- also general ceived assistance.

At the hearing before the workers’ Corp Opinion of Court dermatologist deposition referee, Earl J. Rudner, M.D., into evidence. Rudner was admitted April, four times from treated had plain- through June, 1979. Rudner had never seen was in the active tiff his skin condition while stage, on a based his conclusions and therefore physi- plaintiff as well as his examination of visual primary history. He testified that cal secondary dermatitis, and contact folliculitis contact with further skin could be exacerbated grease. oil and plaintiff with materi- to

Rudner had offered test place, plaintiff did not from the work but als According testing. Rudner, submit foundry itself to skin of the lends environment eruptions. testified that contact derma- He further acquired, elected not not inherited. Plaintiff titis is follow-up in contravention of to return for care recommendation. Rudner’s Supervisor Safety D. Brazil John Environmental person stating work- defendant, testified ing conveyor Huber line at defendant’s on the exposure oil, Foundry though al- have little would to lubricate that oil was used was aware restrictions also testified that work the deck. He had placed plaintiff’s in an problem. attempt help his skin employees plaintiff’s rebuttal, fellow In one of foundry dust in there was steel testified that at the grease mist in the floor. The oil and on body upon the air and the air stuck person’s contact. to a open granted plaintiff of of referee The April beginning in amount necessary per plus week, reasonable $156 expenses. Upon award, the reversed of that review employ- finding part. wcab, an exacerba- "caused at most ment with defendant *5 App 554 549 tion of symptomatology ag- and did not cause or gravate plaintiffs condition,” the lim- ited the award of benefits to to the time period April 23, 1979, 11, of to June 1979. remand,

On the wcab found that skin life”; condition an of "ordinary the condition had not or acceler- by plaintiff’s ated employment; and that plaintiff from totally recovered the skin condition as of 11, June 1979. Since the inadvisability working at a specific job was not sufficient render an individual disabled the field of com- labor, plaintiff mon was not to compensa- entitled 11, tion after June

Plaintiff argues now the wcab failed to aPPly proper legal argues standards. He further its decision was unsupported the evidence and based findings. erroneous factual

On decision, review of a findings wcab of fact are 1963, conclusive 6, absent fraud. Const art 28; MSA 17.237(861); Burns Gen 418.861; MCL v § eral Corp, Motors 151 App 527-528; Mich 391 (1986). NW2d 396 Such findings will not be over turned if this Court finds any competent evidence them. Schaefer v Williamston Commu support (After Remand), nity Schools 150 Mich App (1986). 190; However, 387 NW2d 856 appellate court may examine the application legal board’s standards. Devault v General Motors Corp, 149 (1986). Mich App 769; 386 NW2d 671 If the applied standard, wcab legal erroneous correct procedure tois reverse and remand to fact-finding wcab for further conclusions (After Lang Remand), Williams v law.

179, 183; 327 Murdock v Michi (1982); NW2d 240 gan HMO, 151 581; Mich App 391 NW2d 757 (1986). argues that because he was unable Chrysler Corp op Opinion the Court possibility due previous position

work at he was pimples, disabled of the of recurrence 418.401; MSA meaning MCL within Metropolitan v also on Adair 17.237(401), relying 393, 401-403; 196 NW2d Co, Building determined Although *6 notwith compensation not entitled plaintiff was returning inadvisability standing the medical standards, work, improper legal apply it did not it advisa medically whether was for the not relevant to return work is ble for until it is established it is inadvis or the work. That by

caused advanced at to return to work able for he has him to unless not entitle does v Mar injury. Kostamo compensable suffered a Co, 116; 274 Mining Iron quette (1979). 411 NW2d cases,

In all successful workers’ by preponderance must a the claimant establish and a relation injury both a personal the evidence workplace. Miklik and the ship injury between the Co, Machine Michigan Special v Devault, supra at 769. (1982); 367; 329 NW2d 713 not his only plaintiff’s symptoms, Where aggravated which have is entitled to closed employment, General Mo See Carter v only. of benefits 105 577, 594; 106 Corp, tors NW2d Mich for a criteria Court set forth the Supreme Kostamo, supra at 116: compensable injury provide not does compensation law The workers’ illness or by person for a afflicted his work or aggravated by or caused re- working is a different result conditions. Nor debility progressed quired has because 164 where the worker work or pain cannot without . injury. . . Unless the work has or accelerated illness, disease or deterioration and, thus, it, work, contributed to or the coupled illness, deterioration, with the disease or in fact causes an injury, compensation payable. is not found had not met his proving burden of that his employment caused or aggravated his underlying condition; that at most it caused an exacerbation symptomatology. The relied for its determination on the extremely close time relationship between his employment and the manifestation symptoms. It also relied on the fact plaintiffs Dr. expert, Rud- ner, although testifying the employment ex- posure caused the never saw symptomatology, plaintiff when state, his condition was in an active but, rather, saw him three more than after years his symptoms became manifest. The expert there- fore gave his opinion on the of his basis *7 own presumptions plaintiffs history.

Although Dr. Rudner plaintiffs indicated that condition had "acquired” been rather than "inher- ited,” the wcab noted opinion that was based solely plaintiffs history without benefit of any proofs hearing adduced at the relative to the types of chemical exposure composition or oil that may have been present. Just where the ac- quired the condition is a of fact as to which plaintiff persuasion. burden of The wcab concluded plaintiffs condition was "an disease of life.” We find that the wcab applied the appropriate legal standard to this case. argues also the decision of the wcab was unsupported by the evidence and based on erroneous findings. factual Findings regarding disability whether a exists and wcab a particular whether aggravated has Chrysler Corp 557 Thomas v by Shepherd, J. Concurrence findings a condition to the are Rapids Corp, fact. Dressler v Grand Die Casting (1978). 243, 250; 402 Mich 262 NW2d 629 circumstantial; evidence be only witnesses, passes on the but its credibility draws inferences from the it facts which finds estab Corp, lished. Castillo v General Motors 105 Mich 776, 780; (1981), 417 App NW2d lv den 412 (1982). plaintiff’s Where it is only symp toms, not his which have employment, is entitled to a closed award of benefits See only. Carter, supra at 594. wcab concluded as a matter of fact

evidence submitted by plaintiff failed to satisfy proving burden of causation. Our review of the (or persuades record this Court the evidence it) lack of allows a conclusion that failed to sustain his of proof regarding burden causation. See McClain Chrysler Corp, v 728; (1984), 360 NW2d 284 lv den 422 Mich 914 (1985). not, asserts,

This is as in case which the made findings of fact contrary rather, undisputed evidence; in a situation which proofs probative are insufficiently Aquilina v in the of the eyes trier of fact. See Corp, General Motors 211-212; NW2d 923 the order of

Accordingly, the wcab is affirmed. (concurring). Shepherd, agree J. with the re- I sult this case adequate since there was evidence in the record for the to find that the plaintiff was cured as of June and that therefore *8 the award should be closed as that date. agree supports

I do not the evidence question conclusion that the disease in was an 164 by Shepherd, J. Concurrence only disease of life. The evidence in the relating record to this indicates that acquired disease is and not inherited. There is also acquired any- no evidence that the disease was place employment. any other where event, than the In if had an clearly aggravated by place. it was the work I language opinion believe that the in the nothing this was more than an exacerbation of symptomatology raises a distinction without a dif- why Otherwise, ference. would have re- ceived workers’ benefits in the first place any period? simply cured,

Now that has a problem go in that he back to his former agree because of his condition. I problem is not a that has been addressed the workers’ statutes.