Court Opinion

ID: 9730849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:26:22.955689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:10.083550
License: Public Domain

Coleman, C.J.
(concurring). We concur in the result reached.
This separate concurrence is to express disagreement with the legal standard stated in the majority’s opinion. We conclude that the proper legal standard for entitlement to specific-loss benefits for the loss of a hand is whether the employee has suffered (1) an anatomical loss equivalent to an aihputation or (2) the loss of the industrial use of the hand.
We agree with the majority’s analysis of Hutsko *529v Chrysler Corp, 381 Mich 99; 158 NW2d 874 (1968), and their conclusion that it did not adopt a standard more restrictive than the standard applied in Mitchell v Metal Assemblies, Inc, 379 Mich 368; 151 NW2d 818 (1967). The standard consistently applied by this Court is whether the employee has lost the industrial use of the hand.
We cannot agree with the majority that the standard consistently applied by this Court is whether the employee has lost the primary service of the hand in industry. Although some statements have been made in opinions concerning a loss of primary functions, such statements were dicta rather than the legal standard used to resolve the case.
In Lovalo v Michigan Stamping Co, 202 Mich 85; 167 NW 904 (1918), this Court did make a reference to the primary services performed by the hand. However, the holding in Lovalo did not incorporate these statements into the standard controlling entitlement to specific-loss benefits. It could not have since Lovalo was never awarded specific-loss benefits for the loss of a hand. He received total disability wage-loss benefits.
The only other case referred to by the majority as adopting the loss of primary function test is Mitchell, supra. However, a perusal of the opinion in Mitchell clearly indicates that the Court was applying the loss of industrial use standard.
The majority’s opinion in the instant case is the first to enunciate the standard for specific-loss benefits as a loss of the primary service of the hand in industry. If this is the same standard as has been applied by this Court (the majority’s opinion concludes there is no present need for a different one), giving that standard a new name will only hinder the development of a clear rule of *530law relating to this issue. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board in the instant case did not find that plaintiff lost the primary service of his hand in industry. They found he lost the industrial use of the hand.
If the standard of a loss of primary service in industry is intended to be something other than a loss of industrial use, we cannot define the meaning of that standard. Furthermore, there is serious question whether the case law would support the adoption of any standard other than a loss of industrial use.
We conclude that the standard governing entitlement to specific-loss benefits for the loss of a hand is whether the employee suffered an anatomical loss equivalent to an amputation or the loss of the industrial use of the hand.
Applying this standard to the facts found by the WCAB, we conclude that the award of benefits was not subject to reversal.
Ryan, J., concurred with Coleman, C.J.