Court Opinion

ID: 9726849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:10:37.286302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:31.482448
License: Public Domain

Carr, J.
(concurring). The question involved in this case is whether the- plaintiff is entitled to dependency compensation under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act* of the State because of the death of her husband while an employee of the defendant. It is undisputed that said employee had worked for defendant for a number of years. In February, 1955, he developed a heart condition which disabled him for some months. With the approval of his physician he returned to work on or about September 1, 1955. Thereafter he was employed at various jobs that he apparently handled without noticeable difficulty.
A f ew weeks prior to April 10,1957, Mottonen was assigned by defendant to the so-called rock house at the Iroquois mine. His duties there involved re*666moval of foreign materials from the ore to prevent their getting into the crusher, and to break up larger chunks of ore with a sledge hammer so that the pieces would be small enough to go through a large rail screen. The work also involved a certain amount of effort in the operation and control of the mechanism. The record indicates that Mottonen had difficulty in doing the work in question, and that a fellow employee, on occasions at least, assisted him in the performance of his duties. It also appears that a representative of the employee’s union sought to assist by suggesting to defendant that Mottonen be given lighter work, but was told that no easier job was available. It is a matter of inference that defendant was aware of the situation. During the night of April 9, 1957, as appears from the testimony of his fellow worker, Mottonen experienced much difficulty, being compelled to rest several times and complaining of dizziness and chest pains. Shortly after finishing his shift his death- occurred on the premises of the defendant.
■ 'The medical testimony was materially in dispute as to the precise cause of death, and to some extent as to the exertion that Mottonen had been required to expend. The referee, weighing the testimony taken before him, denied compensation. The appeal board reversed, finding, as set forth in its opinion that:
“The arduous physical effort of deceased in the rock house during a period of weeks immediately prior to April 10, 1957, was directly related to his death. Such physical effort precipitated the final heart attack which deceased suffered and caused his death. Deceased sustained a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and due to causes and conditions characteristic of and peculiar to the business of the employer.” *667It is apparent from the language quoted that the appeal hoard had in mind the provisions of part 7, § 1(c), CL 1948, § 417.1 (Stat Ann 1950 Eev § 17.220), of the statute which defines the term personal injury as including “a disease or disability which is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to the business of the employer and which arises out of and in the course of the employment.” In other words, the award of the appeal hoard was predicated on part 7 of the act under which the right of recovery involves somewhat different considerations than obtain in instances where the application for compensation is based on part 2. Underwood v. National Motor Castings Division, Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Company, 329 Mich 273. In consequence, we are not here concerned with whether the decisions in Sheppard v. Michigan National Bank, 348 Mich 577, Coombe v. Penegor, 348 Mich 635, and other cases involving awards under part 2, were based on a proper interpretation of the statute.
The question before us in the instant case is whether there was competent testimony to support the factual finding of the appeal board with reference to the cause of Mottonen’s death. If so, then such finding is conclusive. CL 1948, § 413.12 (Stat Arm 1950 Eev §17.186). Hooks v. Wayne County Road Commissioners, 345 Mich 384, 392, and prior decisions there cited. Our examination of the record brings us to the conclusion that the board’s finding was supported by competent medical testimony, and also by proofs as to the nature of the work in which Mottonen had been engaged for some weeks prior to his death and the conditions and circumstances under which such work was performed. Apparently the work in the rock house was too strenuous for him without endangering his life. The testimony of his fellow workman is significant in this regard.
*668For the reasons indicated we concur in affirmance of the award.
Dethmers, C. J., and Kelly, J., concurred with Carr, J.

 PA 1912 (1st Ex Sess), No 10, as amended (CL 1948, §411.1 et seq., as amended [Stat Ann 1950 Rev and Stat Ann 1959' Cum Supp § 17.141 et seq.}).