Opinion ID: 848996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: objective standard of review

Text: Moreover, in determining whether there has been an actual employment event leading to a mental disability, and a perception of that event that is not unfounded, the inquiry must be conducted under an objective standard. [10] The second sentence of § 301(2) modifies events with the term actual, and modifies perceptions with the term not unfounded (or founded). These modifying terms implicate objective considerations. See, e.g., Radtke v. Everett, 442 Mich. 368, 386-387, 501 N.W.2d 155 (1993). As explained previously, actual means existing in fact or in reality, not delusional or imaginary, and founded means to be based in; to be grounded in. In turn, based and grounded respectively mean to establish as a fact or conclusion and [to have] rational or factual support for one's position. By the Legislature's use of these terms in the second sentence of§ 301(2), it is clear, that in determining whether actual events occurred and whether a claimant's perceptions were founded, the factfinder must assess the factual circumstances in terms of how a reasonable person would have viewed them. [11] Thus, in applying the proper statutory test, the factfinder must first determine whether actual events of employment indeed occurred. Then, in analyzing whether a claimant's perception of the actual events of employment had a basis in fact or reality, i.e., the claimant's perception was founded, the factfinder must apply an objective review by examining all the facts and circumstances surrounding the actual employment events in question to determine whether the claimant's perception of such events was reasonably grounded in fact or reality. [12]