Court Opinion

ID: 9723394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:13:39.858191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:48.353974
License: Public Domain

Lindemer, J.
(dissenting). In this case the referee concluded "plaintiff’s disability is not related to his work. The record is clear that he was a horse for work. He worked long hours and had a good measure of responsibility but it is also clear that he liked his work and was happy with it and there is no indication of emotional stress or concern over pressure.” The testimony of plaintiff’s doctor most favorable to plaintiff is as follows:
"A. I’d have to generalize on that. Most of the hemorrhages of this age group, he is a relatively young man, occur, are due to an aneurysm in the cerebral vascular vessels which is a weakening in the wall of that vessel, usually congenital. This [sic] whether it remains a whole wall or whether it ruptures or not is thought to be related to the blood pressure that the person is maintaining, and to add to that, that in permanent hypertension or in labile hypertension, either one of the two, that stress can, and often does, cause an elevation of blood pressure.
"Q. And by stress, what do you mean by that, Doctor?
'A. Stress of any kind, emotional fatigue, excitement, cold, this is one of the tests used for blood pressure, put the man’s hand in cold water and see how the blood pressure responds.
"Q. All right. Had you ever seen Mr. Steel before '69?
'A. No, that was our initial meeting.
”Q. The stress that you talk about, Doctor, that would *179be an individual thing, too, would it not, it would be an individual reaction to that kind of thing?
"A. Oh yes.
"Q. And could you describe again the mechanism by which an aneurysm would occur?
"A. Well an aneurysm—
"Mr. Hammer [Attorney for State Accident Fund]: I’ll object to the question. You haven’t laid any foundation for it, that he ever had an aneurysm.
"Mr. Anderson [Attorney for plaintiff]: Well the doctor suggested it was a possibility of an aneurysm in his prior testimony.
"The Witness: This is the most common cause of that age, that is the only thing I can say about that and it is congenital, it is believed to be congenital, present at birth.
"[Mr. Anderson]: And then what happens with an elevation or stress or things of that nature?
"A. It is unpredictable that the first stress can cause rupture or continued stress or continued elevation of blood pressure can cause rupture. It depends on the thickness of the blood vessel wall where the rupture occurs, this type of — the type that we think he had, the hemorrhage usually occurs in the early 30s, statistically.”
The facts developed were that the plaintiff was a hard worker. He worked from 60 to 100 hours a week for this employer as a warehouse supervisor. He washed all of the trucks weekly, shoveled snow in winter, and mowed the lawn in the summer, for which he was compensated additionally. With his two sons he handled a newspaper route unrelated to his employment. Additionally, he built and owned stock cars for racing and drove them competitively in 1968. It is easy to comprehend the compassion felt by the WCAB as well as all others reading the record in this case. Nevertheless, the testimony is that plaintiff likely suffered an aneurysm. The doctor’s testimony was that most of the *180hemorrhages of this age group occur due to an aneurysm in the cerebral vascular vessels which is usually a congenital situation.
The WCAB found that plaintiffs long hours of work and job responsibilities "could well have contributed” to his hemorrhage. Such a finding is not a finding upon which liability can be predicated.
This Court in Zaremba v Chrysler Corp, 377 Mich 226; 139 NW2d 745 (1966), established the test that the exertion complained of must be either the sole or a contributing cause of the injury. On the record before us, neither the referee nor the WCAB so found, the award of the latter being based only on conjecture.
I conclude that the facts in this matter mandate a reversal of the WCAB and reinstatement of the decision of the referee.

ORDER

Entered May 25, 1977. — Reporter.
This cause having been remanded to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board for proceedings in accordance with our opinion of December 7, 1976, the further proceedings were held by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board and plaintiff now has filed a motion to affirm the board’s order. On order of the Court, the motion is considered and it is granted.