MacKenzie v. Fisher Body Division, General Motors Corp.

210 N.W.2d 357, 48 Mich. App. 175, 1973 Mich. App. LEXIS 711

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 28, 1973
• Docket: Docket 14695
• Status: Published

Opinions

R. B. Burns, J.

This is an appeal from the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board.

Plaintiff was employed in the defendant’s inspection and salvage department. He was responsible for tagging and returning defective production parts to suppliers. His job did not require him to make decisions whether parts were defective or not; he merely tagged those parts found to be defective by an inspector and packaged them for return to the supplier.

Two or three years before his retirement the plaintiff began to experience nervousness, anxiety, and fatigue in his work. At the hearing before the referee he referred to unspecific pressures by his supervisors, but was unable to relate any specific instances of pressure. Nor was he able to cite any specific instances to the two psychiatrists who examined him on behalf of respective counsel. The only specifics testified to by the plaintiff was the fact that his assistant was lazy, incompetent, and shunned responsibility, the responsibility then falling on plaintiff, and the fact that production workers on later shifts often used rejected parts already tagged and collected by him. Plaintiff’s sensibilities were offended by what plaintiff considered to be the poor quality product manufactured by his company, production increases, and incompetent and indifferent new help hired by the company.

Plaintiff complained of a long history of irritability, loss of appetite, and inability to sleep. These symptoms persisted even three years after his retirement.

Psychiatrists called by both parties generally agreed that plaintiff had psychoneurotic problems and that he was disabled from working in an industrial environment. The experts were unable to agree as to the cause of plaintiff’s condition, that is, whether the nervous condition was causally related to his employment. Both psychiatrists agreed that the plaintiff’s condition was one of long standing.

Plaintiff’s psychiatrist testified that the plaintiff was disabled and that his work was the cause of his disability.

Defendant’s psychiatrist testified that plaintiff’s neurotic state was internal and not related to his job.

The appeals board reversed the hearing referee’s award, and stated:

"This is indeed a different case than Carter. In that matter, plaintiff was injured by an external force — his work environment. In this case,. plaintiff MacKenzie was disabled by something from within — that internal cause of his disability being a personality disorder dating back to his youth. We know of no case law that would permit compensation for plaintiff’s perception of a work environment as injurious, when in fact that perception does not square with fact and the environment is shown not to be injurious.”

In the Carter Case (Carter v General Motors Corp, 361 Mich 577; 106 NW2d 105 [1960]) the only expert who testified was a psychiatrist for the plaintiff. He testified that the plaintiff’s disability was caused by emotional pressures produced by production line employment.

In the present case there was conflicting testimony before the board. The board chose to accept the testimony of the defendant’s psychiatrist that the plaintiff’s disability was caused by a personality disorder dating back to his youth. The board found as a matter of fact that the disability was not caused by his work environment.

Findings of fact of the appeals board are, in the absence of fraud, conclusive, where there is evidence to support them. Dean v Arrowhead Steel Products Co, Inc, 5 Mich App 691; 147 NW2d 751 (1967). This Court is bound by such findings.

Affirmed. Costs to defendant.

Van Valkenburg, J., concurred.