Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A police officer sought worker's compensation from the City of Pontiac for the deterioration of a preexisting lung condition, which he claimed was aggravated by inhalation of various pollutants, including environmental tobacco smoke from a fellow officer during his sixteen years of employment. A magistrate judge found sufficient evidence to support the alleged deterioration of the plaintiff's lung condition and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for "reasonable and necessary medical expenses." The Workers Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) affirmed that judgment. The defendant appealed, claiming that the WCAC went beyond its authority when it made a finding that the double lung transplant that the plaintiff eventually underwent (as opposed to the mere aggravation of a preexisting condition), was work related. The State of Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the WCAC, finding that the commission had applied a proper standard for evaluating the available evidence establishing the link between the exposure to workplace cigarette smoke and the aggravation of the plaintiff's lung disease.