Lelo v. Buena Vista Charter Township, 052605 MIWC, 2006-295

• Case Date: May 26, 2005
• Court: Michigan

WALTER J. LELO, SS# xxx, PLAINTIFF, v. BUENA VISTA CHARTER TOWNSHIP, MI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS COMPENSATION, DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, SELF-INSURED, SECOND INJURY FUND, DUAL EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS, DEFENDANT. No. 2006-295 Michigan Workers Compensation State of Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth Workers’ Compensation Agency Board of Magistrates May 26, 2005          The social security number and dates of birth have been redacted from this opinion.           CHRISTOPHER P. AMBROSE 215G, JUDGE          This matter comes before the Board as the result of a Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission remand mailed October 26, 2005. In that remand, the Appellate Commission has directed that a finding be made regarding whether Plaintiff's employment activities with Delphi aggravated his right knee condition pursuant to Rakestraw v. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., 469 Mich. 220(2003).          Although Plaintiff, at the time of trial, testified regarding knee symptoms while working at Delphi, I find that based upon the totality of all the evidence submitted that there has been no demonstration that Plaintiff's employment at Defendant Delphi contributed to Plaintiff's disability pursuant to Rakestraw. It is clear that Plaintiff's employment activities with Delphi did not create a medically distinguishable injury, separate and apart from Plaintiff's pre-existing right knee injury which was caused by his employment with Defendant Buena Vista Charter Township. Certainly, there is testimony to support this conclusion. Dr. DeSantis, in her testimony testified as follows:

Q. Doctor, based on the history that you received and the surgical report which you reviewed as well as your examination of this man what is your opinion as to whether he has any knee pathology that would be related to his employment at Delphi either by way of direct causation, aggravation or acceleration?

A. It’s my opinion that he has no condition, no pathology related specifically to his employment at Delphi.

(A.D. pg. 21)          Additionally, Dr. Paarlberg testified as follows:

Q. Okay. And if he continued to perform unrestricted work

...