## Facts

- John Kushay injured his back in January 1961 while working for Sexton Dairy Company after lifting a 130-pound can of cream.
- He underwent spinal surgeries in February and June 1961.
- The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) found Kushay became totally and permanently disabled due to industrial loss of use of both legs.
- Kushay experienced severe, persistent pain and significant mobility limits; he spent most of his time in bed and used a wheelchair or two canes to move.
- His wife, Daisy Kushay, provided extensive in-home assistance, including dressing him, administering medication, changing his clothes, assisting with toileting and enemas, clipping toenails, and driving him to medical appointments.
- Kushay sought workers’ compensation requiring the employer to pay for Daisy’s services as “other attendance or treatment” under the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Act.

## Issues

1. Whether medically related in-home services provided by an injured worker’s spouse can qualify as compensable “other attendance or treatment” under the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2. Whether the WCAB’s denial based on the view that the services were merely what a “conscientious wife” would do was a binding factual determination or an erroneous legal premise.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the WCAB and remanded for a determination of the amount payable for Daisy Kushay’s services.
- The Court held that spousal in-home care may constitute compensable “other attendance or treatment” when reasonably necessary due to the work-related injury.
- The Court concluded the WCAB’s “conscientious wife” rationale reflected an incorrect legal construction of the statute rather than a factual finding insulated from review.
- The Court left to the WCAB on remand fact questions concerning the nature, extent, necessity, and reasonable value of the services.

## Legal Principles

- “Other attendance or treatment” under the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Act can include necessary, medically related, home-based care and assistance, even when provided by a spouse rather than a paid attendant.
- Statutory construction and whether a category of services can fall within the statute are questions of law reviewable by the Supreme Court.
- A tribunal may not deny compensation solely because the caregiver is a spouse or because the tasks can be characterized as ordinary marital assistance; the proper inquiry is whether the services were reasonably required by the work-related disability and are compensable under the statute.

## Conclusion

The court held that necessary, medically related in-home care provided by a spouse may be compensable as “other attendance or treatment” under Michigan workers’ compensation law, and it remanded for findings on the necessity, extent, and value of the services rather than permitting denial based on generalized assumptions about spousal duty.


Kushay v. Sexton Dairy Co., 394 Mich. 69, 228 N.W.2d 205 (1975)