In a recent published decision, Simpson v Borbolla Construction & Concrete Supply, Inc. (Case No. 264106, January 25, 2007), the Michigan Court of Appeals departed from prior Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) Decisions and held that Rakestraw v Gen Dynamics Land Sys, Inc, 469 Mich 220; 666 NW2d 199 (2003), does not apply to a situation where the pre-existing medical condition is work related. Mr. Simpson was an iron worker. In 1979, he suffered a work related fracture of the lunate bone of his left wrist. The fracture went untreated and his left wrist progressively worsened. Mr. Simpson worked for Borbolla for one day on October 23, 2000. His job involved inserting reinforcing rods into concrete, and required him to, among other things, carry heavy bundles of rods. Mr. Simpson testified that the work bothered his left wrist, but that he was able to finish the one-day job. Mr. Simpson did not work after that. Medical experts testified that Mr. Simpson suffered from necrosis (death of tissue) of the left wrist lunate bone due to the work related fracture in 1979. One expert testified that continuing use of the wrist after the fracture increased the rate of bone deterioration to the point the condition precluded Mr. Simpson from performing most tasks of an iron worker. In Rakestraw, the Michigan Supreme Court held that, where an employee has a pre-existing condition which she/he claims was injured or aggravated by a subsequent work related injury, the employee must prove that the new injury or condition is “medically distinguishable” from the pre-existing condition in order for it to be compensable. In Simpson, the magistrate and WCAC held that the employee had proven a “medically distinguishable” injury as a result of the one day of work with Borbolla. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the WCAC, but for a different reason. It held that the facts in Mr. Simpson’s case were distinguishable from the facts in Rakestraw in that, in Rakestraw, the pre-existing condition was not due to a work related injury. In Mr. Simpson’s case, the prior injury was work related. Therefore, the Court held that Rakestraw’s requirement that the employee prove a “medically distinguishable” injury did not apply in Simpson. The Court of Appeals in Simpson observed, “[t]he significance of the pre-existing condition in Rakestraw was not so much that it was pre-existing, but rather that it was not work-related.” (Simpson, Slip Opinion at 5). Thus, it appears that, in cases where the employee claims a re-injury or aggravation of a pre-existing injury or condition, if the pre-existing injury or condition was work related (with the current employer or a different employer), Rakestraw does not apply and the employee does not need to prove a new, “medically distinguishable”, injury or condition. In some cases, Simpson may make it easier for employees to prove work related injuries or conditions. 1-29-07