The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC), in an Order, dated April 4, 2007, by a 5-2 majority, reversed the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA), awarding benefits to the plaintiff employee in the case of Hileman v Trailer Equipment, Inc, (No. 132850, April 4, 2007). The MSC cited its prior decision in Rakestraw v General Dynamics Land Systems, 469 Mich 220, 231 (2003). The MSC held that, where plaintiff's surgery was occasioned solely by a non-occupational injury, and even though plaintiff's disabling symptoms were worsened by work activity, the magistrate correctly found that work-relationship was not proven after the date of surgery, and affirmed the magistrate's closed award of benefits. This order suggests that the MSC may not agree with appellate decisions interpreting Rakestraw, which hold that, where employees have pre-existing injuries or medical conditions, mere changes in symptoms from work-related injuries or exposures are sufficient to meet plaintiff’s burden of proving a “medically distinguishable condition” to be awarded workers’ compensation benefits. The details of the Hileman case are summarized below. Plaintiff began working for defendant Trailer Equipment in November 2000. On July 4, 2001, plaintiff fell from an all terrain vehicle (ATV), in a non-occupational incident, struck his head and fractured his odontoid. He was treated and placed in a halo to immobilize his neck for several months before being released to return to work. Plaintiff testified that he was feeling fine. In January 2002, defendant transferred plaintiff to a ""switcher job"" where plaintiff used a semi tractor to move 30 to 50 trailers per day. Plaintiff testified that these activities ""jarred"" his neck and he developed neck pain and numbness in his right arm within a couple weeks. In March 2002, plaintiff sought medical treatment and was placed on restricted work. Plaintiff's neck symptoms increased, and he was taken off work on March 25, 2002. He subsequently applied for worker's compensation benefits. Plaintiff's treating physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist testified that plaintiff's complaints of neck pain stemmed from the change in his work activities in January 2002 and that the source of plaintiff's pain was ""mechanical neck pain from cervical spondylosis."" An independent medical examiner testified that plaintiff's pathology related to the non-occupational ATV injury, the odontoid fracture. The independent examiner testified that surgical fusion of the odontoid fracture was totally independent of the presence or intensity of symptoms. Plaintiff underwent fusion surgery to stabilize the site of the odontoid fracture on January 9, 2003. His worker's compensation trial occurred in February 2003. Plaintiff was still wearing a cervical collar, and complained of ongoing right arm pain and loss of some feeling in his right leg and arm since the surgery. The magistrate granted plaintiff a closed award of benefits from his last day of work to the trial date. However, the magistrate held that plaintiff had failed to establish that the need for the fusion surgery was related to his work activities. The magistrate found that the need for surgery was instead ""solely related to"" the non-occupational ATV injury and, therefore, that any symptoms that plaintiff experienced as a result of the surgery were not work related. The Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) affirmed the magistrate's finding of a work-related injury as a result of the job duties as a switcher. However, the WCAC reversed the magistrate on closing off the period of disability and instead found that plaintiff's work-related disability continued. The WCAC reasoned that there was no testimony distinguishing between the symptoms (and disability) plaintiff suffered before and after the fusion surgery. The COA, in an unpublished decision, (No. 265641, 11/21/06), affirmed the WCAC. The MSC reversed the COA. It held that the COA erred in affirming the decision of the WCAC by equating the plaintiff's testimony about his continuing symptoms with evidence of an ongoing work-related disability. The MSC noted that the magistrate found, and the WCAC agreed, that the plaintiff's surgery was solely occasioned by a non-occupational condition, and that plaintiff's disabling symptoms, although worsened by work activity, were the result of that non-occupational condition. The MSC found that the magistrate correctly held that the work-relationship was not proven by the plaintiff after the date of the surgery, and the WCAC erred as a matter of law in holding otherwise. Rakestraw v General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc, 469 Mich 220,231 (2003). 04-20-07