Dekesis v DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2007 ACO #16
In this en banc decision, three of the five Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commissioners reversed the findings of the magistrate that the Plaintiff suffered from a right knee condition that was significantly aggravated by her employment or that the right knee conditions constituted a personal injury.

In her scathing controlling opinion, Commissioner Grit highlighted numerous errors in the magistrate’s analysis. She stated that the magistrate incorrectly identified the pathology, diagnoses, and medical chronology of the Plaintiff’s condition, and even if he had not, there was not testimony supporting a work injury or a significant aggravation. Sec. 301(2) of the WDCA states that conditions of the aging process are compensable only if the work activities contributed to or aggravated or accelerated the condition in a significant manner. In this case, the only testimony in favor of the magistrate’s finding was that of the Plaintiff’s expert. He stated “I believe that the injury had contributed to the progressive deterioration of her knee and the need for the procedures that were performed.” This alone could not support a finding that a work injury significantly contributed to the Plaintiff’s preexisting arthritis.

Commissioner Grit continued by finding that even if the higher standard required by Sec. 301(2) did not apply, the Plaintiff still failed to show she suffered a compensable injury that arose out of and in the course of her employment. According to the Commissioner, there is a difference between an “event” and an “injury.” The testimony in this case was enough to prove an “event” occurred, but it is an “injury” that generates an award of workers’ compensation benefits and that was not proven. Lay testimony can establish that an event happened at work, but it takes medical testimony to explain that the event damaged the employee in some way and that there is a causal nexus between the event that is the injury and the employment such that benefits are appropriate.

In this case, the Commissioner noted that the Magistrate identified work injuries that did not exist, thus invalidating his entire analysis, because it was evaluating a nonexistent injury. There was absolutely no substantial evidence on the record supporting the doctor’s conclusion, thus necessitating a reversal of his award of benefits.

The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to hear this matter on the issues presented.