Court Opinion

ID: 9849004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:32:29.107881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:56.898738
License: Public Domain

Williams, C.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). While I concur generally in the reasoning and rationale of my brother Brickley’s opinion, I write separately because I dissent from that portion of the opinion which adopts the conclusion of the Court of Appeals as to when the plaintiff was first aware of the possibility that his stroke might be work-related. The Court of Appeals made a factual finding on the basis of testimony by the plaintiff before the hearing referee and, in doing so, exceeded its authority. I would vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board for a factual determination on this issue.
I also wish to emphasize that, assuming the majority is correct that the plaintiff was aware of the possibility his stroke was work-related, the majority opinion does not impose a higher standard of notice on the employee than on the employer.
The Court holds that in order for the employer’s duty to file to arise there must have been a "fact situation[] that made it possible for the employer to be on notice of the possibility of work-related*105ness.” Ante, p 104. Thus, notice to the foreman that the employee’s hands were cold and freezing, West v Northern Tree Co, 365 Mich 402; 112 NW2d 423 (1961), and notice to the employer that the employee was having chest pains at work, Combs v Michigan Mobile Homes, 406 Mich 507; 280 NW2d 451 (1979), were sufficient to require filing by the employer. However, in this case there was no argument that the employer knew that the employee was experiencing severe headaches and tiredness at work; therefore, the employer did not have notice of the possibility of work-relatedness.
Under the rule adopted today, a party, employer or employee, with knowledge of facts giving rise to the possibility of work-relatedness is required to act in accordance with those facts. Since the employee alone knew he had headaches, he was required to file his claim within the prescribed statutory period.