Opinion ID: 2211572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Connaway v. Welded Construction Co.

Text: In Connaway, plaintiff Deborah Connaway worked for defendant Welded Construction Company as a welder's helper. Connaway is an Illinois resident, and Welded Construction is a company engaged in pipeline construction in several states. In 1989, Welded Construction hired Connaway to work on a project in Gould City, Michigan, by placing a telephone call to her union hall in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Connaway traveled to Michigan for the job and on November 2, 1989, her first day of work at the Michigan job site, she fell off a pipe and injured her right knee. She applied for and received Michigan worker's compensation benefits as a result of that injury. Connaway was treated by Dr. Raymond L. Coss, an orthopedic surgeon, who performed arthroscopic surgery on her right knee in February 1990. After several months of physical rehabilitation, including a work hardening program, Coss recommended that Connaway return to work, placing no restrictions on job duties she could perform. Welded Construction assigned her to a job site in New York state performing the same tasks as a welder's helper that she performed before her initial injury, and Connaway started working the New York job in August 1990. On September 4, 1990, after she had worked about two weeks on a schedule of ten hours a day and six days a week, she again injured her knee. [19] After the New York injury, Connaway received worker's compensation benefits in the state of New York, but additionally applied for worker's compensation benefits in Michigan. Addressing the petition for Michigan benefits, the magistrate faced the question whether the New York injury should be characterized as a recurrence or an aggravation of the Michigan injury. This distinction was critical to the result, under the so-called Massachusetts-Michigan successive injury rule, which this Court adopted in Dressler v. Grand Rapids Die Casting Corp., 402 Mich. 243, 253-254, 262 N.W.2d 629 (1978), to allocate responsibility for paying worker's compensation benefits where an injured employee has suffered successive injuries. In this case, if the New York injury was a mere recurrence of the Michigan injury, then the successive injury rule would assign responsibility for Connaway's worker's compensation benefits to her Michigan employer. However, if the New York injury aggravated Connaway's original Michigan injury, independently contributing to her present disability, even slightly, then the successive injury rule would assign responsibility for Connaway's worker's compensation benefits to her New York employer. Given that Connaway's employer was the same in both states, the rule would effectively determine which state's worker's compensation system applied to Connaway's claim for disability benefits. The magistrate determined that Connaway's second injury was a mere recurrence of the first, concluded that Michigan law applied, and entered an open award of benefits in her favor. Welded Construction appealed from the magistrate's decision to the WCAC, arguing that Michigan lacked jurisdiction to award benefits to an employee who received a disabling injury in New York, particularly where the employment contract was not entered into in Michigan, defendant was not a Michigan corporation, and plaintiff was not a Michigan resident. The WCAC framed the issue as whether there is a continuing disability from a Michigan injury or a new and separate injury resulting from the work in New York. 1997 Mich. ACO 304. Applying the substantial evidence test, the WCAC determined that the magistrate's factual findings regarding Connaway's continuing disability and a recurrence of her Michigan injury, were not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, and therefore reversed the magistrate. Citing expert medical testimony contained in the record, the WCAC determined that the New York injury was truly an aggravation of the Michigan injury, and that the successive injury rule required Connaway to pursue worker's compensation benefits in the state of New York, rather than Michigan. 1997 Mich. ACO 304. Connaway sought leave to appeal from the WCAC's decision to the Court of Appeals, which granted leave and affirmed the WCAC in a published opinion. [20] Connaway then sought leave to appeal to this Court, which we granted. [21] Connaway's principal argument before this Court is that the magistrate's findings were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, and that the WCAC erred in ruling otherwise. Connaway relies upon the language in Goff, supra, 454 Mich. at 513, 563 N.W.2d 214, which suggests that the courts must begin by reviewing the magistrate's decision, not the WCAC's decision, and must independently determine whether the magistrate's findings are supported by the requisite evidence. As set forth above in part II, this suggestion is incorrect. The courts review the WCAC's decision, not the magistrate's decision, and the judiciary's role is to ensure that the WCAC properly recognized and exercised its administrative appellate function. For these reasons, we reject Connaway's invitation to review the whole record anew and determine whether the magistrate's decision was supported under the substantial evidence standard of review. Connaway next argues that the WCAC's decision is not supported under the any evidence standard and that even if the New York injury did aggravate her previous injury, she is entitled to Michigan worker's compensation benefits. We disagree. The Massachusetts-Michigan successive injury rule, adopted in Dressler, supra, was described in Mullins v. Dura Corp., 46 Mich.App. 52, 55-56, 207 N.W.2d 404 (1973), quoting 3 Larson, Workmen's Compensation,  95.12, pp. 508.130-508.133, as follows: The Massachusetts-Michigan rule in successive-injury cases is to place full liability upon the carrier covering the risk at the time of the most recent injury that bears a causal relation to the disability. If the second injury takes the form merely of a recurrence of the first, and if the second incident does not contribute even slightly to the causation of the disabling condition, the insurer on the risk at the time of the original injury remains liable for the second.