Court Opinion

ID: 9721460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:59:58.859551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:26.106519
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring in affirmance). I agree that this case is, to some extent, factually distinguishable from Tomasini (366 Mich 503); also that there is some evidence in the record which tends to justify the specific conclusion reached by a majority of the appeal board:
“Having in mind that the proofs before us show that the employer knew from annual examinations of plaintiff’s chest that he did have silicosis and that the employer obviously knew about the dust conditions which the unrebutted evidence presented here shows that plaintiff was subjected to during the course of his employment, we then ask, what more could plaintiff have told his employer at the time that he left their employ other than he was leaving because he had silicosis and was attempting to protect himself so that he might live as long as he could with the employment incurred disease ? Plaintiff was not required to claim compensation at that time but did have to make his claim in six months for it to be valid. Thus he did, well within six months.”
Proof in Tomasini, no counterpart of which appears in this record, was quoted by footnote on page 505 of Tomasini’s report:
*617“Plaintiff testified:
“ ‘Q. We have to ask you these questions for the record. During the time before you quit the mine did you ever talk to Mr. Purpich [plaintiff’s foreman] about having these troubles, you yourself?
“ ‘A. No. I didn’t mention to nobody. I going to quit I tell them, that’s all.’
“The testimony of Mr. Purpich was to the identical effect; that plaintiff quit without complaint and ‘told me he was going on pension.’ ”
This is not all. In Tomasim the plaintiff’s medical witness, Dr. Martinetti, did not come through for him on the pivotal issue, that is, the “date of disablement”. For details, see Tomasim at 508.
For these reasons I concur in affirmance.