Court Opinion

ID: 9739106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:08:48.335858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.036050
License: Public Domain

Jansen, J.
(dissenting). The Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board applied an incorrect standard, and, therefore, this case should be remanded. The wcab’s reasoning was essentially that because most teachers do not become mentally disabled by the nature of their job and their students, plaintiff was not so disabled. A condition or event of em*263ployment does not become compensable because most similarly situated employees, or an objective employee, would be disabled by the condition. Benefits are payable when a particular employee suffers a loss of that particular employee’s wage-earning capacity because of a personal injury at work. MCL 418.301(1); MSA 17.237(301X1), MCL 418.351(1); MSA 17.237(351)(1), and MCL 418.361(1); MSA 17.237(361X1).
Plaintiff established numerous events that led to his disability. The wcab agreed that almost all these events were "actual events,” and there was no dispute that the events arose out of plaintiff’s employment. Thus the "actual event” requirement of §§ 301(2) and 401(2)(b) was satisfied. The act does not say that an event must be unusual, highly stressful, or extraordinary for the event to lead to a compensable disability. It does not matter what effect actual events might have on other employees, because the act compensates individual employees for their respective personal losses.
The act compensates an employee with a preexisting condition that makes the employee more susceptible to a physical injury than a typical employee. Zaremba v Chrysler Corp, 377 Mich 226; 139 NW2d 745 (1966). Once an employee proves a mental disability arising out of an actual event of employment that affects his condition in a significant manner, that employee is as entitled to disability benefits in the same manner as a physically disabled employee. In the present case, the wcab did not express any meaningful doubt that the events occurred as alleged by plaintiff. Once plaintiff established the events he claimed had injured him, the wcab should have weighed the expert testimony or otherwise determined causation.
There is little difference between this case and Carter v General Motors Corp, 361 Mich 577; 106 *264NW2d 105 (1960). The Legislature invalidated the decision in Deziel v Difco Laboratories, Inc (After Remand), 403 Mich 1; 268 NW2d 1 (1978). Hurd v Ford Motor Company, 423 Mich 531; 377 NW2d 300 (1985). Hurd says nothing about Carter being invalidated.