Court Opinion

ID: 9740403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:34:39.014899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.227531
License: Public Domain

Sharpe, J.
(dissenting). I am not in accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice Btjshnell awarding compensation to plaintiff for reasons hereinafter stated.
Section 8 of part 7 of the workmen’s compensation act (CL 1948, § 417.8 [Stat Ann 1950 E.ev § 17.227]), provides in part:
“Where an occupational disease is aggravated by any other disease or infirmity, not itself compensable, or where disability or death from any other cause, not itself compensable, is aggravated, prolonged, accelerated, or in anywise contributed to by an occupational disease, the compensation payable shall be such proportion only of the compensation that would be payable if the occupational disease were *178the sole cause of the disability or death as such occupational disease, as a causative factor, bearing to all the causes of such disability or death, such reduction in compensation to be effected by reducing the number of weekly payments or the amounts of such payments, as under the circumstances of the particular case may be for the best interests of the claimant or claimants.”
In Coombs v. Kirsch Co., 301 Mich 1 (11 NCCA NS 510), we had occasion to interpret the application of the act. In that case plaintiff suffered a compensable disease (hernia) while in the employ of defendant company. He also had Malta fever, a noncompensable disease. The disability caused by the hernia was not aggravated by the Malta fever. We held- that under such circumstances the above-quoted section has no application. We there said:
“The above-quoted section 8 pertains solely to compensation payable. It can operate only where plaintiff’s disability has been caused by ‘an occupational disease’ and ‘any other disease or infirmity, not itself compensable’ or ‘any other cause, not itself compensable.’ In such cases, the statute clearly stated that it is applicable only where (1) an occupational disease is aggravated by any other disease or infirmity, not itself compensable, or (2) where disability or death from any other cause, not itself compensable, is aggravated, prolonged, accelerated or in anywise contributed to by an occupational disease.”
In the case at bar, the department found:
“In our opinion the apportionment provision in section 8 of part 7 is applicable only where there are 2 separate and distinct diseases in no manner related to each other, both of which contribute to the disablement. That is not the situation here as there is a direct causal relationship between the silicosis and the tuberculosis. Therefore, the provi*179sions of section 8 of part 7 do not apply to the instant case.
“We find that plaintiff is totally disabled from silicosis complicated by tuberculosis.”
The statute becomes operative when a noncompensable disease or infirmity aggravates a compensable occupational disease or when a compensable occupational disease aggravates a noncompensable disease or condition. In the case at bar, tuberculosis is a noncompensable disease. The only testimony as to the cause of plaintiff’s disability was given by Dr. Markoe who testified that both diseases were disabling and that the tuberculosis was aggravated by silicosis. Under the record in this case the only finding of fact that the commission could have made is that the tuberculosis was aggravated by silicosis. Its statement that “plaintiff is totally disabled from silicosis complicated by tuberculosis” is not supported by the record, nor has it any bearing upon the issue now under consideration. Assuming, as the commission found, that there is a direct causal relationship between the silicosis and the tuberculosis, yet this fact does not prevent the section under consideration from being operative. The statute does not provide that the compensable occupational dissease and the noncompensable disease or condition must be separate and distinct. The statute provides for apportionment where a noncompensable disease (tuberculosis) is aggravated by a compensable occupational disease (silicosis).
In the case at bar both diseases found lodgment in the lungs. Both are disabling and the compensable occupational disease aggravated the noncompensable disease. Under such circumstances section 8 of part 7 of the act became operative.
The award should be vacated and the cause remanded to the workmen’s compensation commis*180sion for further proceedings as required by the act. -Defendant should recover costs.
Boyles, J., concurred with Sharpe, J.