Business 8th Edition by Marianne Jennings

Exercise 25

Gacioch v Stroh Brewery Co.
396 N.W.2D 1 (Mich. 1990)
Free-Beer Lunches, Alcoholism, and Workers' Co
Facts
Casimer Gacioch (plaintiff) began working for Stroh Brewery on February 24,1947. When he began his work for Stroh, he was predisposed to alcoholism, but he had not yet become an uncontrolled alcoholic.
Beer was provided free at the brewery and was available to all employees on the job at "designated relief areas." This availability had been negotiated through a collective bargaining agreement. Employees could drink beer during their breaks and at lunch with no limit on the amount.
Mr. Gacioch did not drink at home during the week but drank three or four bottles of beer on the weekend. At work he drank twelve bottles a day. He was not a test taster; he ran a machine that fed cases of beer to a soaker.
In 1973, Stroh Brewery noticed Mr. Gacioch's drinking problem and required him to sign an agreement stating that he could no longer drink on the job. He continued to drink, and seven months after the first agreement he signed a second agreement not to drink on the job. He again continued to drink, was intoxicated on the job, and could not perform his work. He was fired on August 30, 1974.
From April 1976 until September 1978, Mr. Gacioch worked part-time as a church custodian. He pursued a workers' compensation claim against Stroh, alleging he was disabled because of alcoholism. He was denied recovery and appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), which found that alcoholism is a disease, that the free-beer policy accelerated the problem, and that Stroh should pay compensation. Stroh appealed.
Judicial Opinion
ARCHER, Justice
This case involves a claim for workers' compensation benefits for the chronic alcoholism suffered by plaintiff. We must determine whether, under the circumstances extant in this case, chronic alcoholism, suffered by plaintiff who, during breaks drank beer provided free by Stroh Brewery pursuant to a collectively bargained contract provision negotiated by the union, is compensable under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act as a personal injury which arose out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment.
The statute in effect on the last day of plaintiff's employment at Stroh Brewery read:
An employee , who receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by an employer who is subject to the provisions of this act , at the time of such injury , shall be paid compensation in the manner and to the extent provided in this act , or in case of his death resulting from such injuries the compensation shall be paid to his dependents as defined in this act.
"Personal injury" shall include a disease or disability which is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to the business of the employer and which arises out of and in the course of the employment. Ordinary diseases of life to which the public is generally exposed outside of the employment shall not be compensable.
Defendants contend that alcoholism is not a disease, but, rather, a "social aberration." All three experts testifying in this case, Drs. Smith and Tanay, plaintiff's experts, and Dr. Ranch, defendants" expert, referred to alcoholism as a disease. Dr. Smith described alcoholism as a "lifelong metabolic disease, much like diabetes." Dr. Tanay testified that alcoholism is associated with particular personality disorders which begin during a person"s childhood. The WCAB treated plaintiff's chronic alcoholism as a disease. Our review of the professional literature on the subject indicates that various organizations representing health care professionals have officially pronounced alcoholism as a disease. Hence, plaintiff's chronic alcoholism is a disease for purposes of the above statute.
Plaintiff asserts that his chronic alcoholism was an occupational disease. We disagree. A review of the record indicates that the WCAB also did not conclude that plaintiff's alcoholic condition was an occupational disease. The board treated plaintiff's alcoholism as an ordinary disease of life. The proper inquiry in this case, therefore, is whether plaintiff's chronic alcoholism was a disease or disability which was due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to the business of Stroh and which arose out of and in the course of employment. In reaching the question concerning whether chronic alcoholism is a disease which is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to the business of Stroh and which arose out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment, we must be careful not to equate "circumstance" of employment with "out of and in the course" of employment. If chronic alcoholism can be categorized as an ordinary disease of life to which the public is generally exposed outside of the employment, plaintiff is not entitled to a workers' compensation award. The pertinent question then is whether the board made specific findings as to whether brewery workers are more prone to develop chronic alcoholism than is the general public.
We are unable to discern from the opinion of the board whether it found as fact that brewery workers are more prone to suffer from chronic alcoholism (an ordinary disease of life) than is the general public. We note that none of the experts testifying in this case stated that plaintiff's alcoholism was due to the inherent characteristics and peculiarities of his employment in the brewery industry as a production worker responsible for running a machine. Dr. Smith, for example, testified that "Mr. Gacioch would have most likely become an alcoholic anyway and his drinking outside of work eventually [was] far greater than during work." Dr. Rauch opined that individuals who are predisposed to alcoholism, like plaintiff herein, are likely to become an alcoholic no matter where they work.
We are unable to determine from the opinion of the WCAB whether it understood the applicable legal standard and what facts it specifically relied upon in reaching its conclusion that plaintiff's alcoholism was compensable under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act.
We therefore remand this case to the WCAB for its statement of the law and the specific facts relied upon to support its conclusion.
Is alcoholism a disease?