Court Opinion

ID: 9657093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:13:53.941116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:40.801245
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. At the hearing before the referee, plaintiff testified as follows :
“Q. Do you use your left hand in doing your work?
“A. Yes, I do.
“Q. Do you use your index finger of your left hand?
“A. Well, yes.”
*580In Hutsko v. Chrysler Corporation (1968), 381 Mich 99, 102 it was held that:
“in order to qualify for the specific loss payment where there has not been the actual physical loss of the member as by amputation, there must be that total incapacitating loss of use which renders the organ or member industrially useless for any type of work, skilled or unskilled.”
In my opinion, plaintiff’s own testimony belies total industrial loss of the finger and disqualifies him for compensation under specific loss provisions of the statute. I would reyerse the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board’s ruling because of their misapplication of law and reinstate the hearing referee’s decision.