Lamb v. John's Tavern

195 N.W.2d 278, 37 Mich. App. 678, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1748

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 19, 1972
• Docket: Docket 10691
• Status: Published

Opinions

Bronson, J.

On or about January 19,1968, plaintiff, while performing her normal duties at John’s Tavern, where she was employed as manager and waitress, felt a soreness in her arm. Several days later she saw Dr. Schimnoski, who prescribed medication. Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital February 5,1968. She gave a history showing no known injury or strain, but did remember lifting a beer keg on the day she felt the soreness. Such lifting was in the normal course of her duties. Her history also indicated that she had been unconscious for eight hours following a fall in 1966, and had undergone surgery on two occasions. On plaintiff’s discharge from the hospital, Dr. Schimnoski diagnosed her problem as a shoulder-hand syndrome and commented that her job was related to her symptom.

Subsequent evaluations failed to establish a physical cause for plaintiff’s disability. A Dr. Kingsley, however, felt that there was “marked emotional overlay” and recommended a psychiatric examination. Plaintiff was then examined by a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist, Dr. Moore. His evaluation, related in a letter from Dr. A. B. Hagedorn of the Mayo Clinic, was that plaintiff was suffering a “conversion reaction”. Dr. Moore also suggested that plaintiff return to work and that all legal matters pending be settled. The Workmen’s Compensation Referee found for plaintiff. The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board reversed. The majority found:

“Based upon the inability of a number of attending physicians to diagnose the nature and cause of plaintiff’s symptomatology and in agreement with Dr. Moore’s diagnosis it is our opinion that Mrs. Lamb’s pain which has persisted unabated since January 19, 1968, had its origin in a pre-existing emotional distress which manifested itself in her present symptomatology. We find no evidence in the file of this case which would allow us to determine that Mrs. Lamb’s emotional distress either had its origin or was aggravated in any manner by her work at John’s Tavern. We therefore find that any disability that Mrs. Lamb may presently suffer is not causally related to her work. We therefore, reverse the referee’s decision.”

This Court must affirm if there is any evidence in the record to support findings made by the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board. Lemanski v. Frimberger Co. (1971), 31 Mich App 285; Litwin v. Difco Laboratories, Inc. (1970), 28 Mich App 132; Clark v. Apex Foundry, Inc. (1967), 7 Mich App 684. In exercising our appellate function, however, we must have more than conclusionary statements to review. We must know how the board reached its conclusions. This Court has stated that “the appeal board should indicate the testimony adopted, the standard followed and the reasoning it used in reaching its conclusion”. McClary v. Wagoner (1969), 16 Mich App 326, 328.

The appeal board majority opinion is based on conclusions without reasons. It accepts Dr. Moore’s diagnosis without explanation and then concludes that there is “no evidence in the file of this case which would allow us to determine that Mrs. Lamb’s emotional distress either had its origin or was aggravated in any manner by her work at John’s Tavern”. (Emphasis added.) The record indicates that such evidence does exist. Dr. Schimnoski thought the plaintiff’s soreness was work related; plaintiff to the same effect; and Dr. Moore’s evaluation indicates the problem could be related to plaintiff’s work and to this litigation. If the board had chosen to accept this evidence, it could have found that the emotional distress was work related. While it is not our function to weigh evidence before the appeal board, we believe the board should attempt to explain its decisions based on all the evidence before it. See 3 Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation (1971), § 80.20, p 264.

It seems to us that the standard used by the majority to determine whether plaintiff’s injury is compensable is unclear. The majority seems to assume that a finding of conversion reaction necessarily precludes a finding that plaintiff’s pain is work related. This is not necessarily so. Redfern v. Sparks-Withington Co. (1958), 353 Mich 286. An injury is compensable when it is “the unexpected result attending the operation or performance of a usual or necessary act or event”. Sheppard v. Michigan National Bank (1957), 348 Mich 577, 580. This includes injury to the body and/or nervous system which produces a disabling neurosis. Such injury is compensable even when a plaintiff is predisposed towards it if the injury aggravates a pre-existing condition to the disability or precipitates disability. Redfern v. Sparks-Withington Co., supra, at 299.

In returning this case to the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, we are not unmindful of our proper function as an appellate court. But in any appeal from an administrative board to our Court where conclusions are stated without reason, we should never hesitate to remand.

The order of the appeal board is vacated and the cause remanded for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.

Targonski, J., concurred.