Bullard v. Mult-A-Frame Co.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | 6919,MULT-A-FRAME,No. 2,Docket Nos. 6973,6925 and 8608,2 |
| Parties | James A. BULLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.COMPANY and Michigan Mutual Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees. Richard SKELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Nicholas BELLOWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACME INDUSTRIES, INC., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. James L. HOPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John W. Simpson, Jr., Kelman, Loria, Downing & Schneider, Tower, for Richard Skelton and Nicholas Bellows.
Lacey & Jones, Detroit, for Chrysler Corp.
Edward D. Wells, Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan, Grand Rapids, amicus curiae.
John D. Doyle, Troff, Lilly, Bonow, Piatt & File, Kalamazoo, for Acme Industries, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
Sam W. Thomas, Thomas, Saunders & Gualtieri, Detroit, for James A. bullard.
LeVasseur, Wemer, Mitseff & Brown, Detroit, for Mult-A-Frame Co. and Michigan Mutual Liability Co.
Paul A. Williams, Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams & Dilley, Grand Rapids, for James L. Hopson.
Edward D. Wells, Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan, Grand Rapids, for defendants-appellees.
Before BRONSON, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and LEVIN, JJ.
All four plaintiffs in this consolidated appeal seek this Court's rejection of the workmen's compensation appeal board's interpretation of Michigan law. 1
The facts essential for our determination are few and uncomplicated. Plaintiff James Bullard injured his eye on January 7, 1965, and complete loss of vision occurred on February 19, 1966. 2 Plaintiff Richard Skelton injured his index finger on September 12, 1964. After all attempts at treating the finger had failed, it was amputated on July 21, 1966. Plaintiff Nicholas Bellows injured his foot on January 26, 1961. Following unsuccessful treatment, amputation occurred on January 5, 1966. Plaintiff James Hopson injured his eye on April 15, 1964, but loss of vision did not occur until March 3, 1966. 3
All of the plaintiffs have one legally significant fact in common. Between the dates of their injuries and the dates of their personal physical losses the workmen's compensation amendatory act of 1965 4 became effective. 5 This act, among other things, increased the level of benefits paid to qualifying injured workers. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to the higher rates because their personal losses. occurred subsequent to the effective date of September 1, 1965.
In support of their argument they cite the case of Allen v. Kalamazoo Paraffine Co. (1945), 312 Mich. 575, 20 N.W.2d 731. In Allen the Michigan Supreme Court determined that when a specific loss occurs subsequent to the original injury the proper rate of payment for the specific loss is that rate in effect at the time the specific loss occurs. The facts in the Allen case are very similar to the situations involved in these cases. The Court in Allen very generously qualified the injured plaintiff for the higher rates on the grounds that the 'cause of action for the loss * * * accrued when the loss occurred.' Allen, supra, p. 577, 20 N.W.2d p. 732. The Court was free to apply equitable principles in the Allen case; we are not. In clear and unambiguous language the legislature has rendered the Allen principle inapplicable to the 1965 amendatory act. An 'accruing cause of action' is irrelevant when applying the 1965 amendment. The higher rates of the act apply only to those workers who suffer their 'personal injuries' on or after September 1, 1965:
'All of the provisions of this 1965 amendatory act shall apply Only to personal injuries the date of injury of which occurs on or after the effective date of this act.' 6
The effective date of this act was September 1, 1965. 7
All of the personal injuries suffered by plaintiffs antedate September 1, 1965. Plaintiffs contend, however, that their 'personal losses,' occurring after the effective date, were 'personal injuries' within the meaning of the amendatory act. Although we highly sympathize with plaintiffs' tragic losses, we are constrained to hold otherwise. Plaintiffs' post-effective-date physical losses were not 'personal injuries'; they were instead the directly-related and unfortunate consequences of their pre-effective-date injuries.
We cannot assign to the phrase 'personal injury' the unnatural meaning plaintiffs urge us to give it. 8 It is the court's duty to construe legislation as it reads, without resorting to contorted definitions in the name of equitable considerations. Shaw v. Lakeway Chemicals, Inc. (1966), 3 Mich.App. 257, 142 N.W.2d 15.
The injuries to plaintiffs were inflicted when they were on their jobs and not when they were received subsequent medical care.
A careful reading of M.C.L.A. § 412.15 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.165) pursuades us the legislature equated 'personal injur' with 'original accident' and distinguished personal injury from subsequent disability or incapacity.
Plaintiffs, however, point to the words in M.C.L.A. § 417.2 (Stat.Ann.1968 Rev. § 17.221) 9 equating 'personal injury' with 'disability' and contend that since their personal losses disabled them they were personally injured at the date of disablement. After careful analysis of the section we cannot agree. When it equates personal injury with 'such' disability it is referring to disability as defined in the section immediately preceding it. 10 The preceding section refers to a situation where a worker First becomes unable to pursue his occupation for wages because of some physical impairment. It is not authority for the proposition that a worker may be disabled twice from the same accident. The section was meant to apply to a disability where the exact date of its causes was difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. The solution was to make the date of disability the date of personal injury for purposes of applying the procedures and practices of the workmen's compensation act. There is no problem in determining the dates of the causes of plaintiffs' disabilities. Plaintiffs were in the when they were first injured and the subsequent physical losses were only further complications of their disablement. 11
We hold that plaintiffs were not entitled to the higher benefit rates of the 1965 amendatory act since their personal injuries preceded the effective date of the act.
Plaintiffs next claim that irrespective of the meaning to be given § 3 of the amendatory act, its constitutional invalidity precludes its application. More specifically they assert that § 3 violates the following provision of the Michigan constitution:
The purpose of this constitutional provision was succinctly stated by Justice Dethmers in Leininger v. Secretary of State (1947), 316 Mich. 644, 649, 26 N.W.2d 348, 351:
'* * * to protect legislators from passing a law not fully understood, to fairly notify them of its design, and to inform them and interested persons that only provisions germane to the object therein expressed will be enacted.'
The legislature's expressed desire as to whom the amendatory act should apply is without question 'germane' to the object of the 1965 amendatory act. Section 3 is likewise embraced within the purposes envisioned by the amended act. 12 See Detroit Board of Street Railway Commissioners v. County of Wayne (1969), 18 Mich.App. 614, 171 N.W.2d 669. Plaintiffs' claim of constitutional infirmity is without merit.
Affirmed. No costs.
The plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence that the Legislature used the term 'date of injury' in the 1965 amendatory act in a sense different from the meaning ascribed to that term by the Michigan Supreme Court in Grodzicki v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. (1934), 268 Mich. 143, 255 N.W. 742 and Addison v. U. E. Wood Co. (1919), 207 Mich. 319, 325, 174 N.W. 149. In those cases the Supreme Court construed that term, as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act, to mean the date of the accident, not the date of the occurrence of a further development of the injury suffered in the accident. See, also, Nieminen v. Isle Royale Copper Co. (1921), 214 Mich. 212, 183 N.W. 9.
In the light of that decisional law, we could not properly say that the words chosen to reflect the legislative purpose--words of art under the Workmen's Compensation Act--have a doubtful meaning.
It may be that the Legislature did not focus at all on the atypical further development factual situation when the retroactivity-prospectivity language was written. If there were evidence either in the structure of the act or in the form of legislative history or otherwise to support that supposition or the plaintiff's claim that the legislative purpose was limited to barring retroactivity in the typical case of temporary total disability, then, indeed, whatever form of words was used in stating the rule of prospectivity in the 1965 amendatory act, the doctrine elucidated in Allen v. Kalamazoo Paraffine Co. (1945), 312 Mich. 575, 20 N.W.2d 731, would not have been superseded.
We may not, however, properly substitute a hunch for concrete evidence either that the Legislature did not concern itself with the question or that it intended to ascribe a special meaning in this instance to the term of art 'date of injury'.
1 The facts of these cases are not in dispute. The factual findings as made by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florentine Ristorante, Inc. v. City of Grandville
...382 Mich. 596, 603, 171 N.W.2d 441 (1969), Threet v. Pinkston, 20 Mich.App. 39, 41, 173 N.W.2d 731 (1969), Bullard v. Mult-A-Frame Co., 33 Mich.App. 678, 683, 190 N.W.2d 559 (1971). The word "prohibit" does have a plain meaning; 34 Words and Phrases, Prohibit, p. 459, "A general power to pr......
-
Sanders v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Assembly Plant
...future entitlement (Mullins [v. Dura Corp.] [46 Mich.App. 52] at 55 ). [137 MICHAPP 459] "Additionally, Bullard v. Mult-A-Frame, 33 Mich.App. 678, 190 N.W.2d 559 (1971) describes that plaintiff's attempt to have further consequences characterized as a new injury to be an 'unnatural meaning'......
-
Brown v. Warren Iron & Metal Co.
...Inc., 268 Mich. 143, 255 N.W. 742 (1934); Lakso v. Munro Iron Mining Co., 243 Mich. 261, 220 N.W. 728 (1928); Bullard v. Mult-A-Frame Co., 33 Mich.App. 678, 190 N.W.2d 559 (1971). Plaintiff's theory is essentially the same as that asserted by the plaintiffs in the Bullard case. As we stated......
-
McQueen v. Great Markwestern Packing Co., Docket No. 15697
...the decision of the referee and appeal board must be reversed. While this panel, like the panel in Bullard v. Multi-A-Frame Co., 33 Mich.App. 678, 190 N.W.2d 559 (1971), may sympathize with plaintiff's misfortune, it is this Court's duty to construe legislation as it reads, without resortin......