Case Name: ECKMAN v. EX-CELL-O CORPORATION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1975-01-28
Citations: 58 Mich. App. 94
Docket Number: Docket No. 18787
Parties: ECKMAN v EX-CELL-O CORPORATION
Judges: Before: Danhof, P. J., and Bronson and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 58
Pages: 94–99

Head Matter:
ECKMAN v EX-CELL-O CORPORATION
Opinion of the Court
1. Workmen’s Compensation — Disability—Course of Employment —Causal Connection.
A claimant who had suffered a mild hearing loss was not entitled to workmen’s compensation where he failed to establish a causal connection between his hearing loss and his employment.
2. Workmen’s Compensation — Disability—Hearing Loss — Ability to Obtain Employment.
The test for determining whether a hearing loss is disabling is the effect of the hearing loss on the ability to obtain employment and not the extent of the hearing loss.
3. Appeal and Error — Workmen’s Compensation — Appeal Board— Findings — Evidence.
Findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board are conclusive where they are based on substantial and competent evidence.
Concurrence in Result by O’Hara, J.
4. Workmen’s Compensation — Appeal Board — Appeal and Error— Findings — Compensable Disability — Course of Employment.
Findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board that a claimant did not prove he had a compensable disability arising out of and in the course of his employment is conclusive where the ñnding was clearly a permissible inference based on the evidence.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 58 Am Jur, Workmen’s Compensation § 209 et seq.
[3, 4] 58 Am Jur, Workmen’s Compensation § 530.
Appeal from the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board.
Submitted Division 1 October 10, 1974, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 18787.)
Decided January 28, 1975.
Leave to appeal denied, 394 Mich —.
Claim by Kenneth L. Eckman against Ex-Cell-0 Corporation for workmen’s compensation. Denial of compensation affirmed by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson (by John W Simpson, Jr., and Robert W. Howes), for plaintiff.
Lacey & Jones (by Hayim I. Gross), for defendants.
Before: Danhof, P. J., and Bronson and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Bronson, J.
The facts necessary to a proper resolution of this appeal are adequately stated in Judge O'Hara's concurring opinion. We have chosen to follow a different approach than that adopted by Judge O'Hara.
The appeal board clearly found that because of a "combination of factors" — claimant's mild hearing loss, his limited exposure to loud noise at work, and his apparent ability to engage successfully in everyday or telephone conversation — Eckman failed to establish an essential element of his claim: the causal connection between his hearing loss, whatever its degree, and his employment with Ex-Cell-O. The board concluded that Eckman failed to prove that his injury "arose out of and in the course of his employment". There is ample support in the record for this finding and the decision to deny benefits is affirmed on that basis alone.
Whether the board determined in addition that Eckman failed to establish that his hearing loss was disabling is a question we need not consider here. If that question was indeed reached and considered by the board, it was unnecessarily, and perhaps incorrectly, decided. Unnecessarily, because the failure of Eckman to establish the required causal link between the injury and his employment eliminates any need for further inquiry. Incorrectly, because the board seemed to emphasize the extent of claimant's hearing loss rather than the effect that hearing loss, however slight, had on his ability to obtain employment. The latter standard is the one properly applicable to cases of this type. Hutsko v Chrysler Corp, 381 Mich 99, 102; 158 NW2d 874 (1968).
The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed the hearing referee's determination that Eckman was not entitled to benefits is based on substantial, competent evidence. The board's findings are accordingly conclusive, MCLA 418.861; MSA 17.237(861), and the decision based thereon is affirmed, for the reasons discussed above.
Affirmed.
Danhof, P. J., concurred.