“Inflammation” Held Not To Be A New Injury Under Rakestraw The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, in the case of Slovan v HCR-Manor Care Inc, 2011 ACO #134, recently held that the Magistrate erred when she found that “inflammation” was a new injury, a medically distinguishable pathologic change in the plaintiff/employee’s spine condition. The Magistrate held that plaintiff suffered a pathological change to her cervical spine, based upon the testimony of plaintiff’s attorney’s examining doctor that (1) two disc protrusions in the cervical spine were most likely the cause of plaintiff’s cervical pain, (2) plaintiff’s injury of April 4, 2006, aggravated the condition of plaintiff’s cervical spine, and (3) the nature of the aggravation was inflammation. The Commission found no support of the Magistrate’s findings in the whole trial record. Therefore, the Appellate Commission remanded the case to the Board of Magistrates to determine whether the record otherwise supported the finding of “an injury that is medically distinguishable from the preexisting non-work related condition”. Plaintiff’s attorney’s medical expert testified that inflammation can lead to nerve root irritation which is the pathological change. However, both plaintiff’s and defendant’s medical experts testified that MRI’s do not necessarily demonstrate nerve root irritation and that the only positive means of doing so is an EMG procedure, which plaintiff refused because of her fear of needles. Application: In workers’ compensation claims or cases involving an unsupported conclusion that “inflammation” was the pathological change that resulted to a preexisting condition from a work injury, there may be a basis for disputing the claim under this case and Rakestraw v General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., 469 Mich 220 (2003). 1-31-12