Williams v General Motors Corp., 2007 ACO #116
In this case, the magistrate placed a very large emphasis on the Plaintiff’s history of substance abuse when coming to a determination on the Plaintiff’s credibility. The magistrate determined that the Plaintiff was “moderately credible” because his substance abuse and resultant psychological problems from same required the corroboration of his testimony with the medical records and other evidence entered at the time of trial. Because the magistrate found that the Plaintiff’s disability was based on his substance abuse and not his alleged back injury, he denied the Plaintiff’s claim for benefits.

The Plaintiff appealed to the WCAC who correctly noted the long-standing principle that when the magistrate finds that the Plaintiff’s credibility is suspect, the Plaintiff’s burden of proof to establish all the elements of his case becomes difficult, it not impossible, to carry. Ultimately, with barely any legal analysis, the WCAC affirmed the magistrate’s decision solely on the issue that the magistrate’s credibility was reasonable in light of the evidence. Because the credibility was limited, the magistrate’s determination was logical and appropriate.

In a concurring opinion, Commissioner Ries cautioned against using emotion problems and substance abuse as a reason to deny benefits under the act because, according to Miklik v Michigan Special Machine Co, 415 Mich 364 (1982), a non-work related health problem, even one that is disabling to an extensive degree, does not bar the payment of benefits under the Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s substance abuse and emotional disability neither justifies nor bars the payment of compensation. However, the difference in this case is that, despite these arguments, the Plaintiff failed to prove that his back condition disabled him pursuant to the Act.