Opinion ID: 1880861
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission's Review

Text: Defendant Newkirk appealed to the Worker's Compensation Appellate Commission. Among other matters, Newkirk argued that the magistrate committed legal error requiring reversal by not applying the significant-manner standard of M.C.L. § 418.301(2); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2). The standard provides: Mental disabilities and conditions of the aging process, including but not limited to heart and cardiovascular conditions, shall be compensable if contributed to or aggravated or accelerated by the employment in a significant manner. [Emphasis added.] Plaintiff argued that the magistrate based his finding of injury on M.C.L. § 418.301(1); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(1). It states: An employee, who receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment by an employer who is subject to this act at the time of the injury, shall be paid compensation as provided in this act. The commission noted that there was no dispute that plaintiff suffers from a type of arthritis which is a condition of the aging process. As such, the significant contribution test of M.C.L. § 418.301(2) [M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2) ] applies. 1995 Mich. ACO 1391. It concluded that the magistrate had clearly erred in failing to apply the significant-manner test. The commission then disregarded some of the magistrate's factual findings and made its own findings. The panel said that an omission by the magistrate made it appropriate for it to exercise its limited fact finding powers under Holden v. Ford Motor Co., 439 Mich. 257, 484 N.W.2d 227 (1992), and Woody v. Cello-Foil Products On Remand), 204 Mich.App. 259, 514 N.W.2d 228 (1994). [5] The panel then undertook to determine whether plaintiff's work-related injury was a significant factor in causing his disability. It found that plaintiff's work was not a significant factor in causing his disability for the following reasons: Dr. Warner's testimony was equivocal at best in regard to the significance of the work incident in relation to plaintiff's overall condition. Dr. Schaiberger's testimony fell far short of opining that work was a significant factor. 1995 Mich. ACO 1394. Dr. Ross testified that plaintiff's work incidents at most caused a temporary symptomatic aggravation, as opposed to a permanent pathological aggravation.... Id. at 1395. The commission concluded: We are not persuaded that the workplace incidents plaintiff complained of were of such a nature that they would have significantly contributed to plaintiff's already existing complaints caused by his degenerative arthritic condition. Certainly, when the record below is reviewed as a whole, it does not support a finding of a significant or pathological aggravation of plaintiff's longstanding arthritic condition. Accordingly, we reverse the Magistrate's open award of benefits. [Id.]