Budd Manufacturing Co.

Michigan Supreme Court · 1945 · Labor Law

Labor LawWorkers' compensationSpecific loss of eyeIndustrial visionworkers' compensationspecific lossloss of an eyeindustrial vision

Facts

Plaintiff was injured while working as a gun welder when sparks from a coworker's welding gun struck his right eye, causing corneal scarring and diminished vision. He continued working for defendant, lost no wages, and sought only the statutory scheduled award for the loss of an eye rather than general disability compensation. Medical testimony showed that the central cornea was scarred and vision in the right eye was reduced, but also showed that plaintiff retained protective or peripheral vision and could still walk around and do some work with that eye. One treating specialist testified that plaintiff had not lost industrial vision and still had useful vision for some factory jobs.

Issue

Whether plaintiff was entitled to the statutory scheduled award for the loss of an eye when he retained protective or peripheral vision in the injured eye that was still useful as industrial vision. More specifically, the question on appeal was whether there was material and competent evidence supporting the department's finding that plaintiff had not lost industrial vision.

Rule

A claim for the scheduled statutory award for loss of an eye is separate from a claim for general disability compensation. The scheduled award for loss of an eye does not accrue unless vision useful in industry is completely lost; if any protective, peripheral, or other vision useful in industry remains, the eye is not deemed lost.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Elena Morris works at Lakefront Tool Works in Toledo, Ohio. A metal fragment scars the center of her right cornea, leaving her unable to read gauges straight ahead with that eye, but two ophthalmologists testify she still has peripheral vision that helps her move safely around the plant and perform some inspection tasks.

If Elena seeks only the statutory scheduled award for loss of an eye, what is the best result?

Explanation. For a specific-loss claim, the controlling question is whether any vision useful in industry remains. Protective or peripheral vision that still assists the worker in industrial settings prevents the eye from being treated as lost, even if central vision is badly impaired and the worker cannot do the same job as before. (Derived from Budd Manufacturing Co. (n.d.).)