Recent Cases - Applying Rakestraw

Michigan Court of Appeals

Applying Rakestraw

In Bousquette v Meeder Dimension & Lumber Co (CA Docket No. 274373, rel’d April 8, 2008), the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission had reversed the Magistrate’s open award of benefits on the basis that the Magistrate erred in failing to apply Rakestraw v General Dynamics Land Systems, 469 Mich 220; 666 NW2d 199 (2003). Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Commission.

Plaintiff suffered a pre-existing back condition as a result of an L4-5 fusion. He claimed that a specific event at work, lifting bags, compensably aggravated that condition. His co-workers confirmed at trial that plaintiff had experienced pain attributable to the lifting at work. The Magistrate found compensable aggravation, but had not explicitly chosen between the competing medical opinions. On appeal, the Appellate Commission reversed on the basis “the magistrate legally erred in failing to apply Rakestraw’s ‘medically distinguishable’ standard.” The Appellate Commission said the testimony of plantiff’s co-workers that he injured his back while lifting bags was binding but was insufficient to establish that plaintiff had suffered an injury medically distinguishable from his pre-existing disc abnormalities.

In affirming the Appellate Commission, the Court of Appeals said the co-workers’ testimony did not shed light on the medical question presented. The Court of Appeals said that the medical record “contains testimony both in support of and against the conclusion that plaintiff suffered a work injury, as distinguished from an exacerbation of symptoms consistent with the progression of his pre-existing back condition.” The Court of Appeals then held that the Appellate Commission could legitimately choose to accept one doctor’s testimony to the effect that lifting the bags at work “may have resulted in exacerbation of plaintiff’s back pain, [but] did not result in any new condition.”