Stables v. Gen. Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 October 1946
• Docket Number: No. 18.,18.
• Citation: 315 Mich. 654,24 N.W.2d 524
• Parties: STABLES v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (FISHER BODY-DETROIT DIVISION).
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

315 Mich. 654

24 N.W.2d 524

STABLES

v.GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (FISHER BODY-DETROIT DIVISION).

No. 18.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 7, 1946.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Vivian E. W. Stables, employee, opposed by General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body-Detroit Division, employer. From an award granted by the Department of Labor and Industry to the employee, the employer appeals.

Award set aside.

Before the Entire Bench.

Henry M. Hogan, of Detroit (G. W. Gloster, R. V. Hackett, and E. H. Reynolds, all of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

J. Gardner Stevenson, of Detroit, for appellee.

CARR, Justice.

General Motors Corporation, defendant, appeals from an award granted by the Department of Labor and Industry to Vivian E. W. Stables, plaintiff. The latter was employed as a junior office clerk by defendant. Some time in 1944, she applied acid to a wart on the inner part of her left wrist while she was at her own home, and, as a result thereof, she suffered an acid burn. The burn did not respond to home treatment. Therefore, during her working hours and at her own volition she went to the first aid station in defendant's research building in the city of Detroit. According to the records of the station, August 3, 1944, was the first date that she came there for treatment, and a 10 per cent. Oxycane ointment was applied to the burn. The clinical record further shows plaintiff did not report back again until September 26, when sulphathiazol powder was applied. This treatment was repeated for several days. After this treatment, however, the wrist became inflamed and produced an itching sensation. The nurse at the first aid station made a further application over the entire wrist; the arm became worse, both arms developed a swelling and a rash spread over the entire body. Plaintiff thus became completely disabled and remained away from work for slightly over six weeks. She first went to a doctor of her own selection and after a few days went to a hospital where another doctor treated her. The amount of the award, which included the loss of time, medical and hospital services, was less than $400.

The case presents a novel question. The original injury was self-inflicted by plaintiff while in her own home and had nothing whatever to do with her employment. The first aid station of defendant was a gratuitous service that was also extended to employees for accidents or diseases that were not contracted out of or in the course of their employment. There was no obligation whatsoever on the part of plaintiff to take advantage of such service. The record leaves the impression that plaintiff was allergic to sulpha drugs, but the department did not pass upon this question. There is no claim that a drug known to be improper was used, but it is intimated that tests should have been made as to whether an allergy existed or not. The question is whether under the circumstances defendant is liable for compensation. The accident did not happen out of or in the course of the employment except to the extent that during working hours plaintiff was excused...