Simpson v Borbolla Construction & Concrete Supply, Inc., 480 Mich 964 (2007)
In this Supreme Court opinion decided December 7, 2007, the court offers much needed clarification as to whether the Rakestraw requirement applies to pre-existing, work related conditions.

One of the questions posited in the Simpson case was whether the claimant needed to satisfy the Rakestraw “medically distinguishable” standard to establish an October 2000 last date of work injury in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s underlying condition was clearly due to a work-related injury in 1979, versus a pre-existing, non-work related condition.

The Michigan Supreme Court has now provided clarification with its recent order in Simpson. The Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeals erroneously held that Rakestraw did not apply to the facts involved in the Simpson case. Further, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of Plaintiff’s benefits for the reasons articulated by the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission.

Thus, for all practical purposes, when the Supreme Court accepted the reasoning of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission and rejected that of the Court of Appeals, it further clarified that the Rakestraw standard, i.e. “medically distinguishable,” does not apply only to non-work related pre-existing conditions, but also to work related pre-existing conditions.

Based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Rakestraw and the court’s recent orders in Fahr and Simpson, when a claimant suffers from a pre-existing condition, whether it is work related or non-work related, he or she must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the condition is medically distinguishable from the pre-existing condition. In other words, there must be a change in pathology or other record evidence from which a legitimate inference may be drawn that the Plaintiff’s underlying condition has pathologically changed as a result of the work event or activity.