Eckman v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Eckman v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.

226 N.W.2d 855, 58 Mich. App. 94, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1670

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 1975

DocketDocket 18787

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 N.W.2d 855 (Eckman v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eckman v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 226 N.W.2d 855, 58 Mich. App. 94, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1670 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

Bronson, J.

The facts necessary to a proper resolution of this appeal are adequately stated in Judge O’Hara’s concurring opinion. We have chosen to follow a different approach than that adopted by Judge O’Hara.

The appeal board clearly found that because of a "combination of factors” — claimant’s mild hearing loss, his limited exposure to loud noise at work, and his apparent ability to engage successfully in everyday or telephone conversation — Eckman failed to establish an essential element of his claim: the causal connection between his hearing loss, whatever its degree, and his employment with Ex-Cell-O. The board concluded that Eckman failed to prove that his injury "arose out of and in the course of his employment”. There is ample support in the record for this finding and the [96]*96decision to deny benefits is affirmed on that basis alone.

Whether the board determined in addition that Eckman failed to establish that his hearing loss was disabling is a question we need not consider here. If that question was indeed reached and considered by the board, it was unnecessarily, and perhaps incorrectly, decided. Unnecessarily, because the failure of Eckman to establish the required causal link between the injury and his employment eliminates any need for further inquiry. Incorrectly, because the board seemed to emphasize the extent of claimant’s hearing loss rather than the effect that hearing loss, however slight, had on his ability to obtain employment. The latter standard is the one properly applicable to cases of this type. Hutsko v Chrysler Corp, 381 Mich 99, 102; 158 NW2d 874 (1968).

The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed the hearing referee’s determination that Eckman was not entitled to benefits is based on substantial, competent evidence. The board’s findings are accordingly conclusive, MCLA 418.861; MSA 17.237(861), and the decision based thereon is affirmed, for the reasons discussed above.

Affirmed.

Danhof, P. J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bronson, J.

The facts necessary to a proper resolution of this appeal are adequately stated in Judge O’Hara’s concurring opinion. We have chosen to follow a different approach than that adopted by Judge O’Hara.

The appeal board clearly found that because of a "combination of factors” — claimant’s mild hearing loss, his limited exposure to loud noise at work, and his apparent ability to engage successfully in everyday or telephone conversation — Eckman failed to establish an essential element of his claim: the causal connection between his hearing loss, whatever its degree, and his employment with Ex-Cell-O. The board concluded that Eckman failed to prove that his injury "arose out of and in the course of his employment”. There is ample support in the record for this finding and the [96]*96decision to deny benefits is affirmed on that basis alone.

Whether the board determined in addition that Eckman failed to establish that his hearing loss was disabling is a question we need not consider here. If that question was indeed reached and considered by the board, it was unnecessarily, and perhaps incorrectly, decided. Unnecessarily, because the failure of Eckman to establish the required causal link between the injury and his employment eliminates any need for further inquiry. Incorrectly, because the board seemed to emphasize the extent of claimant’s hearing loss rather than the effect that hearing loss, however slight, had on his ability to obtain employment. The latter standard is the one properly applicable to cases of this type. Hutsko v Chrysler Corp, 381 Mich 99, 102; 158 NW2d 874 (1968).

The decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board which affirmed the hearing referee’s determination that Eckman was not entitled to benefits is based on substantial, competent evidence. The board’s findings are accordingly conclusive, MCLA 418.861; MSA 17.237(861), and the decision based thereon is affirmed, for the reasons discussed above.

Affirmed.

Danhof, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 N.W.2d 855, 58 Mich. App. 94, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckman-v-ex-cell-o-corp-michctapp-1975.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack