Gardner v. Van Buren Public Schools, s. 95531

• Decision Date: 01 November 1993
• Docket Number: Nos. 95531,95532 and 95536,Nos. 11-13,s. 95531,s. 11-13
• Citation: 445 Mich. 23,517 N.W.2d 1
• Parties: , 91 Ed. Law Rep. 1105 Anthony GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee. Thomas BOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee. Donna L. BACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLINT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar,
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 1

517 N.W.2d 1

445 Mich. 23, 91 Ed. Law Rep. 1105

Anthony GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.

Thomas BOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.

Donna L. BACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLINT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 95531, 95532 and 95536.

Calendar Nos. 11-13, Nov. Term, 1993.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Nov. 3, 1993.

Decided April 19, 1994.

Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Hodges & Barnes, P.C. by Theodore Sachs, Robert G. Hodges, and Granner S. Ries, Detroit, for plaintiffs Gardner and Boyle.

Thurswell, Chayet & Weiner by Lenny Segel and Tammy J. Reiss, Southfield, for plaintiff Bach.

Lacey & Jones by Gerald M. Marcinkoski, Birmingham, for defendant Van Buren Public Schools.

Charfoos, Reiter, Peterson, Holmquist & Pilchak, P.C. by Daniel Peterson and Deborah S. Dorland, Birmingham, for defendant Detroit Bd. of Educ.

Richard E. Cooley, Flint, for defendant Flint Bd. of Educ.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., and Elaine D. Fischhoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for amicus curiae, Accident Fund of Michigan.

Conklin, Benham, Ducey, Listman & Chuhran, P.C. by Martin L. Critchell, Detroit, for amicus curiae, Michigan Self-Insurers' Ass'n.

Glotta, Rawlings & Skutt, P.C. by Richard M. Skutt, Detroit, for amicus curiae, Michigan Injured Workers.

Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Hodges & Barnes, P.C. by Theodore Sachs and Roberta H. Pullum, Detroit, White, Beekman, Przybylowicz, Schneider & Baird, P.C. by James A. White, Okemos, Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson, P.C. by Donald W. Loria, Detroit, and Mark H. Cousens, Bingham Farms, for amici curiae, Michigan State AFL-CIO, Detroit Federation of Teachers, Michigan Educ. Ass'n, and Michigan Federation of Teachers.

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

The issue presented in these cases calls upon the Court to construe M.C.L. § 418.301(2); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2). ¹ Specifically, we must decide whether the statute requires an objective or subjective analysis when examining the significance of "actual events of employment" in determining the compensability of mental disabilities.

We hold that to establish a compensable mental disability claim, pursuant to M.C.L. § 418.301(2); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2), a claimant must prove: (1) a mental disability; (2) arising out of the actual events of employment, not unfounded perceptions thereof; and that (3) those events contributed to, aggravated, or accelerated the mental disability in a significant manner.

All that is statutorily required are "actual events of employment," even if objectively unimportant, that contribute to, aggravate, or accelerate a mental disability in a significant manner.

Although the statutory test embodied in M.C.L. § 418.301(2); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2), does contain objective elements, it is not a purely objective test. If one concentrates on the individual worker, as opposed to an average worker, the statutory test has substantial subjective elements as well.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

All three of these workers' compensation cases involve mental disability claims based on M.C.L. § 418.301(2); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2). All the plaintiffs allege that events and or stress from their respective jobs contributed to, aggravated, or accelerated their mental disability. All three claim a date of injury after January 1, 1982, the effective date of M.C.L. § 418.301(2); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2).

There being no showing of fraud, we take the factual findings of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board as conclusive. Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28.

A. Bach v. Flint Board of Education

Plaintiff worked for two years as a secretary for one of defendant's elementary schools where Sandra Epps was the principal. She testified that her relationship with Epps initially was cordial. In fact, her first performance review conducted by Epps indicated that she was a satisfactory employee. However, plaintiff soon began to feel alienated. She testified that her emotional and physical problems began in late September or early October of 1981.

Plaintiff felt that Epps was unresponsive to her questions, and she claimed that, at times, Epps snapped at her or answered her questions harshly. Plaintiff also alleged that a number of specific work events added to her feelings of alienation.

One such event occurred when Epps had all members of the staff switch jobs for half a day. Plaintiff performed the duties of a math teacher. She claimed that this made her feel uncomfortable because teaching math was not her job. Another event occurred when Epps had plaintiff tell a substitute teacher that the teacher was fired. Plaintiff initially refused, but Epps told her to think of some excuse and eventually made her dismiss the substitute. Plaintiff claimed that this event upset her. Similarly, she also claimed that Epps had her tell callers that Epps was not in when she was, and that this made her feel uneasy.

Another event involved a school bulletin board. Plaintiff maintained a bulletin board and changed the posted information monthly. Once, when school district administrators were visiting, Epps took responsibility for the bulletin board herself. Plaintiff felt that Epps had done a poor job on the bulletin board and that Epps had shown it off as a "fantastic job." Epps failed to acknowledge plaintiff's contribution in the day-to-day maintenance of the bulletin board. This upset her.

One of the most significant events involved plaintiff's second performance review. She was disturbed by the fact that the second review showed no improvement. She felt that she had made significant improvement in her performance between reviews. Epps' failure to acknowledge plaintiff's perceived improvement upset her. Although she did not say anything at first, she eventually did write a letter to Epps indicating her disappointment. When Epps failed to acknowledge receiving the letter, she approached Epps about the issues she had raised. Plaintiff and Epps discussed the letter, but she left with the impression that the discussion had been fruitless. Their relationship continued to deteriorate after that meeting.

Plaintiff developed headaches and stomach pains, had irregular sleeping patterns, and became depressed. She lost weight, stayed in bed, and stopped doing household chores. After December 1981, she only went to work one or two times a week. Her mental condition steadily worsened. Her last day of work was February 3, 1982.

Epps testified that she was never aware of plaintiff's discomfort. Epps explained her telephone policy, that plaintiff had seemed to enjoy switching jobs for a half day, that numerous people shared responsibility for the bulletin board, and that she deleted some of the comments she made in plaintiff's second performance review after meeting with plaintiff.

Expert testimony went both ways regarding whether plaintiff was mentally disabled. Two doctors diagnosed two different forms of depression; another believed plaintiff was not suffering from any active psychiatric disorder.

The WCAB denied plaintiff's claim because, under M.C.L. § 418.301(2); M.S.A. § 17.237(301)(2), it was not convinced that plaintiff's disability was related to actual events of employment that plaintiff accurately perceived. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the WCAB.

"Actual 'events' did occur in the course of plaintiff's employment. But the meaning plaintiff ascribed to these events, which was the basis for the concerns that led to her claimed disability, was not necessarily accurate. There was no convincing showing that Epps was dissatisfied with plaintiff's work or that Epps would not willingly answer plaintiff's questions. There was no convincing evidence showing that plaintiff's working relationship with Epps deteriorated as plaintiff thought it did." 197 Mich.App. 247, 251, 494 N.W.2d 815 (1992).

That Court concluded that the evidence, when viewed from an objective standard, did not support plaintiff's claim for compensation.

B. Boyle v. Detroit Board of Education

For nearly thirty years, plaintiff worked for defendant as a teacher. During the bulk of his last fifteen years, he was an art teacher at Cooley High School.

Plaintiff testified that his mental distress began in the seventies. Student conduct markedly declined, and his art class became a "dumping ground" for problem students who were failing other subjects. He flunked eighty to ninety percent of his students in some classes because of high absenteeism or inattention. He testified that tardiness was also a serious problem; students in his first-hour classes would straggle in thirty or forty minutes late. Plaintiff found the tardiness problem to be very stressful.

Plaintiff was also upset by incidents that occurred in his classroom when he was not using it. He shared the room with another teacher, Robert Williams. Plaintiff felt that Williams did not maintain proper control of his students. He alleged that Williams let his students carve their initials on the tables and let paint drip on the chairs and floor. He reported his concerns to the director of the art program, but apparently nothing came of it.

Cutbacks in the art department's budget meant the cancellation of plaintiff's advanced classes. This left him with students who only took his basic art class because they needed an elective course, art being one of the few electives available. Plaintiff called his advanced classes the bright spot of his day. After the cancellation of those classes, he became increasingly depressed by the caliber of students he was left to teach.

Plaintiff was also troubled by actions of the faculty and administration. He believed that some teachers had sex with students. He regarded such relationships as unprofessional.

Plaintiff started to use sick days so that he would not have to go to work. He began drinking heavily during...