Court Opinion

ID: 9690042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:52:15.55262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.360744
License: Public Domain

Marilyn Kelly, J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff was not entitled to medical benefits beyond July 15, 1984. The wcab found that on that date her symptoma-tology had abated.
I reach this result by applying the Mississippi test, cited with approval in the majority opinion and set forth in 2 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 61.13(e), p 10-971:
Mississippi has held that the employer’s duty stops when the employee has been returned to a point where he is no worse off than he was before the injury. [2 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 61.13(e), p 10-971, citing Lloyd Ford Co v Price, 240 Miss 250; 126 So 2d 529 (1961).]
This test recognizes the possibility that a party with a preexisting condition may subsequently be reinjured on a job. With the injury, the employer’s obligation to provide reasonable medical care *629arises pursuant to MCL 418.315(1); MSA 17.237(315X1). Yet, it also recognizes that Worker’s Compensation is not intended to function as general sickness and health insurance. Wiltse v Borden’s Farm Products Co, 328 Mich 257, 265; 43 NW2d 842 (1950).
My difference with the majority is this: I believe that the test, if properly defined, should not always result in limiting the period of medical benefits to the period of a closed award of disability. Rather, the decision to award an open or closed award of medical benefits should depend on the particular facts of each case. Such a test permits the magistrate to consider both the disability and the nature and extent of the injury as separate entities. It allows the magistrate to provide for the ongoing medical care necessary to adequately treat the injury until the party is returned to his or her preinjury condition.
In some cases, as here, both awards should be closed simultaneously. Plaintiff’s symptoms had abated and she indicated that her hand had returned to its previous condition. However, where a person is no longer disabled but has not yet recovered to the point of being no worse off than before the injury, a different result is appropriate. I decline to adopt the majority’s broad holding which would always limit the award of medical benefits to the length of the disability award in cases which involve a preexisting or chronic condition.