Court Opinion

ID: 9849245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:36:46.359958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:09.049100
License: Public Domain

Holbrook, P. J.
(dissenting). My brother judges quote 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 13.21, p 192.86, as supporting their position. The cases cited in Larson are distinguishable on their facts from the case at hand. In the most favorable case cited therein, Fennell v. Maryland Casualty Company (1961), 208 Tenn 116 (344 SW2d 352), the employee suffered pain following a back injury and operation. When the drugs prescribed by his doctor were exhausted he substituted whisky in nonintoxicating doses to ease the pain. Compensation was awarded when the development of acute hepatitis in addition to malnutrition, the immediate causes of death, were found causally related to the prior back injury.
*180■ “Numerous witnesses * * * testified that lie [Fennell] never took enough whisky to class him as an alcoholic or ever to he found under its influence to the extent that it was noticeable to Rev. Church-well, his pastor, or to his father, or to (other witnesses who testified).” Fennell v. Maryland Casualty Company, 208 Tenn 116, 119.
Plaintiff herein, unlike Fennell, was discharged from his favored employment for being under the influence of intoxicating beverages while at work.*
It is true that this Court does not review fact findings of the appeal board. Yet a fundamental principle remains, viz.: the record may be reviewed to determine if there is competent evidence to support the finding of facts. Pigue v. General Motors Corporation (1947), 317 Mich 311. No competent evidence appears in the instant record showing a need by plaintiff to imbibe intoxicants to the extent of becoming intoxicated to alleviate his pain. Thus the finding of a causal connection is not supported by the record.
Under the facts in this case, Garrett v. Chrysler Corporation (1953), 337 Mich 192 is controlling. For the reasons stated this writer is constrained to voice dissent and vote for reversal.

 On remand from the Court of Appeals, the workmen’s compensation appeal board made the following finding of fact:
“The board finds as a matter of fact that the plaintiff was discharged by defendant for being under the influence of intoxicating beverages while at work.” .........