Case Name: LIZUT v. PEERLESS NOVELTY COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-02-28
Citations: 74 Mich. App. 199
Docket Number: Docket No. 28015
Parties: LIZUT v PEERLESS NOVELTY COMPANY
Judges: Before: Beasley, P. J., and R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 74
Pages: 199–205

Head Matter:
LIZUT v PEERLESS NOVELTY COMPANY
Opinion of the Court
1. Workmen’s Compensation — Appeal and Error — Standard of Review.
The test in an appeal of a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board is not whether the Court of Appeals, sitting as a fact-finder, would find to the contrary, but whether the appeal board correctly understood the law and whether there is evidence to support the findings of fact.
2. Workmen’s Compensation — Findings of Fact — -Evidence—Work-Related Injuries.
A decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board which denied benefits to a claimant was proper and based on a permissible finding where there was substantial conflict in the evidence regarding whether the claimant had suffered a work-related injury.
Dissent by R. B. Burns, J.
3. Workmen’s Compensation — Appeal and Error — Question of
Law — Standard of Review.
The Court of Appeals, in order to review the ñndings of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board as a question of law, must know the testimony adopted, the standard followed, and the reasoning employed by the board in reaching its conclusion.
4. Workmen’s Compensation — Findings of Fact — Support in Record.
A mere statement by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board that a claimant "is not disabled” is insufficient to support a denial ofbenefíts where it is not explained or otherwise related to any testimony quoted in the board’s opinion.
Reference for Points in Headnotes
[1-6] 82 Am Jur 2d, Workmen’s Compensation §§ 616, 631, 634.
5. Workmen’s Compensation — Appeal and Error — Findings of Fact — Support in Record.
The Court of Appeals is mandated to affirm the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board’s findings of fact only when those findings are supported by proof.
6. Workmen’s Compensation — Findings of Fact — Support in Record — Work-Related Injury.
A conclusion of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board that a claimant did not suffer an injury at work is not supported by the record where none of the testimony relied upon by the board relates to the events occurring on the date of injury but deals instead exclusively with the subsequent medical status of the claimant.
Appeal from Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board.
Submitted January 5, 1977, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 28015.)
Decided February 28, 1977.
Leave to appeal denied, 400 Mich —.
Claim by Lois Lizut against Peerless Novelty Company and Allstate Insurance Company for workmen’s compensation. Benefits granted. The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board reversed. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted.
Affirmed.
McCroskey, Libner, VanLeuven, Kortering, Cochrane & Brock (by Timothy J. Bott), for plaintiff.
Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge (by Lance R. Mather), for defendants.
Before: Beasley, P. J., and R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.

Opinion:
Beasley, P. J.
Plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board denying her benefits for an alleged back injury received on or about November 16, 1970.
The decision of the appeal board reversed findings of an administrative law judge which granted benefits to plaintiff.
This is the kind of close case where the temptation is great to substitute the judgment of an appellate court for that of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board. This is particularly so where, as here, the appeal board voted 3-2 to reverse the administrative law judge. But to substitute our judgment would be contrary to the law.
The 1963 Michigan Constitution provides:
"Findings of fact in workmen's compensation proceedings shall be conclusive in the absence of fraud unless otherwise provided by law." Const 1963, art 6, § 28.
This is strong, unequivocal language. This constitutional provision is implemented by § 861 of the workmen's compensation statute which provides:
"The findings of fact made by the board acting within its powers, in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive. The court of appeals and the supreme court shall have power to review questions of law involved in any final order of the board, if application is made by the aggrieved party within 30 days after such order by any method permissible under the rules of the courts of the laws of this state." MCLA 418.861; MSA 17.237(861).
In the case at bar, the appeal board found that the claimant did not sustain a work-related injury on November 16, 1970, and, therefore, denied benefits to her. There was substantial conflict in the evidence. The appeal board has recited the testimony they choose to believe and upon which their decision is based. The test is not whether we, sitting as a fact-finder, would find to the contrary; rather, the test is whether the appeal board correctly understood the law and whether there is evidence to support their findings of fact. DeGeer v DeGeer Farm Equipment Co, 391 Mich 96, 100; 214 NW2d 794 (1974).
The appeal board interpreted the law correctly; if no work-related injury occurred on or about November 16, 1970, plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. No purpose would be served by our reciting the testimony included in the 43 pages comprising a decision of the majority. We would be doing exactly what we are precluded from doing, namely, evaluating and weighing the facts. The appeal board chose to believe evidence which indicated that a work-related injury did not occur on November 16, 1970. It was a permissible finding on this record.
Affirmed.
J. H. Gillis, J., concurred.