Opinion ID: 1674461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: pertinent precedent

Text: The leading case in this area is Paulson v Muskegon Heights Tile Co, 371 Mich 312; 123 NW2d 715 (1963). The claimant in that case suffered a punctured bladder and a fractured pelvis in an automobile accident in the course of his employment. The consequence of the accident was that the claimant suffered constant urine drainage from the bladder through sinus tracts in this area of his body. There was no injury to the legs whatsoever. In Paulson, the treating physician testified as follows: A. His disability results from the presence of the fistulous tract, the fistulous sinus, with pain resulting from any pressure being borne by either leg, especially his right leg, so that even walking after a period of time or for short distances of a half a block will prevent him or cause him to stop and rest, shifting his weight primarily to the left side, to the left leg. (Emphasis in Paulson  371 Mich 312, 314). This Court disposed of Paulson as follows: Appellants would have us read the act as follows: total and permanent disability occurs when, among other ways, there is a total loss of industrial use of both legs, occasioned by direct injury to both legs. Of course, a reading of subsection (7) [MCLA 412.10; MSA 17.160]    presents no such restriction    We construe the statute to mean that permanent and total loss of industrial use, insofar as the facts in this case are concerned, is that leg-connected disabling pain associated primarily with the use of the legs, which is so severe as to make use of the legs in industry practically impossible. Testimony of the treating physician, quoted above, assigned the disability to the presence of a fistula tract, with pain resulting from any pressure being borne by either leg. Therefore, the disability would seem fairly within the scope of the statute. (371 Mich 312, 319.) This last quotation makes two things clear. First, there may be a total industrial loss of use of both legs without direct injury to both legs or, in fact, without direct injury to either leg. Second, Paulson establishes the following test for permanent and total loss of industrial use of both legs: [I]s that leg-connected disabling pain    so severe as to make use of the legs in industry practically impossible? (371 Mich 312, 319). Paulson was followed in Lockwood v Continental Motors Corp, 27 Mich App 597; 183 NW2d 807 (1970). There, the claimant suffered serious impairment of hearing due to factory noise and acquired vertigo which is precipitated when he uses his legs. (27 Mich App 597, 599.) The Court of Appeals found that he had sustained permanent and total loss of industrial use of both legs and was entitled to compensation for permanent and total disability, although claimant's legs themselves were not injured or affected. (27 Mich App 597, 601.) The opposition to finding loss of industrial use in Lockwood was based, as in Paulson, on the fact that the legs themselves were not impaired. Writing for the Court of Appeals, Judge, now Justice LEVIN, however, observed as follows: But the appeal board ruled that Lockwood's case was different than Paulson's because Lockwood's `disabling symptoms are not traceable to the use of the lower limbs per se but are due to an impairment of the balance mechanism in his inner ear which is aggravated by any movement and/or noise'. We think that the appeal board misreads Paulson; a teaching of Paulson is that disabling symptoms are traceable to the use of the lower limbs when they are due to an impairment of another bodily mechanism which is aggravated by leg movement, that compensation for total and permanent disability is payable when a non-leg malady is triggered by the use of the legs and it is that condition which prevents use of the legs in industry. (27 Mich App 597, 603.) Lockwood reemphasizes that there may be total industrial loss of use of both legs without direct injury to both legs or to either leg. Lockwood rephrases the leg-connected disabling pain rule as follows: [W]hen a non-leg malady is triggered by the use of the legs and it is that condition which prevents use of the legs in industry. Paulson and Lockwood examine whether loss of industrial use of both legs can have its source in physical injuries which are not leg-related. A third case in this area, Miller v Sullivan Milk Products Inc, 385 Mich 659; 189 NW2d 304 (1971), explores loss of industrial use from a significantly different, though seemingly analogous, angle. It analyzes primarily whether the loss of industrial use of both legs arises from an employment-related or non-employment-related cause. The claimant in Miller suffered permanent injury to his left leg when he slipped on ice while delivering milk. It was undisputed that there was no impairment or injury of the right leg. While claimant's movements were reduced, he did work intermittently after the injury. The referee and Appeal Board found loss of industrial use confined to the left leg alone. While the Court of Appeals in effect found industrial loss of use of both legs, this Court affirmed the Appeal Board. This Court made two observations pertinent to our analysis. The basic issue in connection with claims of total and permanent disability is one of fact. Each claim must be weighed carefully. Some claims will fail and some will prevail, depending upon the quality of the proofs presented at the hearing. When the limb cannot be used industrially simply because of other disabling infirmities, it would do violence to the statutory intent to hold that the industrial loss of use of such limb has occurred. (385 Mich 659, 667.) Based upon the testimony in this case, the Court of Appeals might also have found that plaintiff weighed 300 pounds at the time of the hearing and during the last ten years has weighed as much as 377 pounds; that his doctor told him he should lose weight; that for two years he worked at a friend's garage where he answered the phone and kept track of car parts. (385 Mich 659, 668.) Miller does not change the rule in Paulson which it recognized. (385 Mich 659, 666.) Nor does it change the rule in Lockwood. As the two above quotations from Miller indicate, the claimant in Miller failed to prove that such loss of industrial use as he suffered was due to his employment-related injury. Note that the first quotation specifies: When the limb cannot be used industrially simply because of other disabling infirmities, it would do violence to the statutory intent to hold that the industrial loss of use of such limb has occurred. (Emphasis supplied.) The second quotation then refers to the claimant's heavy weight despite his doctor's order to reduce. The teaching of Miller is that loss of industrial use must result from an employment-related injury. In other words, claimant Miller did not prove that his loss of industrial use to both legs resulted from the employment-related injury to his left leg. In Paulson and Lockwood there was ample showing that the loss of industrial use was caused by an employment-related injury. In Paulson the employment-related injury was the bladder, punctured in an employment-related accident. It was the pain from this bladder when Paulson used his legs that was so severe as to make the use of the legs in industry practically impossible. In Lockwood the employment-related vertigo triggered by the use of the legs created a condition which prevents use of the legs in industry. In summary, Paulson and Lockwood lay down two tests for determining whether an employment-related injury statutorily causes the permanent and total loss of industrial use of both legs: 1. It is not necessary that both legs or either leg be injured at all. 2. The industrial loss of use of both legs may result from leg-connected disabling pain    so severe as to make use of the legs in industry practically impossible even though that pain is generated from an injury elsewhere in the body (Paulson) or it may result when a non-leg malady is triggered by use of the legs and it is that condition which prevents use of the legs in industry (Lockwood). Miller rules, while Paulson and Lockwood take for granted that: The leg-connected disabling pain or the non-leg malady must be the consequence of an employment-related injury.