ULYSSES REED V OAKLAND COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ULYSSES REED,
UNPUBLISHED
September 13, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
OAKLAND COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,
No. 232396
WCAC
LC No. 00-000222
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Hood and Murray, JJ
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from the order of the Worker’s Compensation
Appellate Commission, which reversed the magistrate’s open award of disability benefits. We
affirm.
Plaintiff claimed a work-related disability due to his degenerative disc disease or arthritis
in his back. Following trial, the magistrate granted plaintiff an open award of disability benefits.
Although the magistrate recognized that plaintiff suffers from nonwork-related arthritis in the
back, which the magistrate agreed was an ordinary disease of life attributable to aging, the
magistrate nevertheless granted benefits because he found that plaintiff’s work aggravated,
accelerated, or contributed to plaintiff’s back problem in a significant manner, as required by
MCL 418.301(2). In reaching this decision the magistrate relied upon the deposition of
plaintiff’s expert Mark Rottenberg, M.D., who testified that plaintiff’s injury at work “went
directly to his continued ongoing problems with his neck and lower back.”
Defendant appealed to the Commission, which concluded that the magistrate’s finding
that plaintiff’s work aggravated, accelerated, or contributed to plaintiff’s back problem in a
significant manner was not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. The
Commission found that Dr. Rottenberg never directly testified that plaintiff’s work significantly
contributed to his current back condition, writing that “[w]ithout more, Dr. Rottenberg’s
testimony that work was a direct factor cannot be translated into it being a significant factor.”
The Commission found inadequate support for the magistrate’s finding on the issue and reversed
the magistrate’s award of benefits.
On appeal plaintiff argues that the Commission erred by substituting its own findings of
fact where the magistrate’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. We find no error.
-1-
This Court’s review of a decision by the WCAC is limited. In the absence of fraud,
findings of fact made by the WCAC acting within its powers shall be conclusive. This Court
may review questions of law involved with any final order of the WCAC. MCL 418.861a(14);
Holden v Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich 257, 262, n 8; 484 NW2d 227 (1992). However, this Court
does not independently review the question of whether the magistrate’s findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence. Mudel v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691,
700-701; 614 NW2d 607 (2000). Instead, this Court’s review is at an end once it is satisfied that
the WCAC has understood and properly applied its own standard of review. Id. at 703. So long
as the WCAC did not “misapprehend or grossly misapply” the substantial evidence test, and
there existed in the record any evidence supporting the WCAC’s decision, this Court must affirm
its decision. Id. at 703-704.
Here the Commission did not engage in any fact finding, but instead reversed a
magistrate’s finding as unsupported by the evidence. Judicial review in this case is therefore
limited to the question of whether the WCAC misapprehended its administrative appellate role or
whether it misapprehended or grossly misapplied the substantial evidence standard, and gave an
adequate reason grounded in the record for reversing the magistrate. Mudel, supra at 703, 732.
The Commission did not misapprehend its appellate function or misapply the substantial
evidence test. The magistrate’s finding that plaintiff’s work played a significant role in the
continuing problems with his back was based on Dr. Rottenberg’s deposition testimony. As
argued by defendant and found by the Commission, Dr. Rottenberg’s testimony never directly
addressed the issue of whether plaintiff’s work contributed to, aggravated or accelerated his back
condition in a significant manner.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.