The WCAB cannot draw inferences contrary to undisputed evidence. White v Revere Copper Brass, Inc, 383 Mich. 457, 462-463; 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970). The evidence presented at the hearing consisted of plaintiff's testimony and the parties' exhibits, including plaintiff's medical evaluations.

The WCAB may not, however, draw factual inferences contrary to the undisputed evidence in the record. White v Revere Copper Brass, Inc, 383 Mich. 457; 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970). Accordingly, we reverse and hold plaintiff established a work-related injury.

Coates is controlling here. See also White v Revere Copper Brass, Inc, 383 Mich. 457; 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970); Carter v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 386 Mich. 610; 194 N.W.2d 326 (1972). As previously indicated the appeal board found that plaintiff's testimony was "void of any evidence which would advise the defendant at the time of retirement that plaintiff was disabled or that disability, if any, was resultant from his employment".

We conclude that there is no competent evidence to support the appeal board's finding of fact. White v Revere Copper Brass, Inc, 383 Mich. 457, 462-463; 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970). It is clear to this Court that if the board had utilized the strictly subjective standard for establishing the causal nexus, it would have awarded compensation.

(Citations omitted.) Petitioner contends that the circuit court erroneously ignored her "undisputed evidence" in violation of the holdings in White v Reverse Copper Brass, Inc, 383 Mich. 457, 462-463; 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970), and Lewis v Chevrolet-Saginaw Grey Iron Foundry Division of General Motors Corp, 48 Mich. App. 516, 518; 210 N.W.2d 794 (1973). In White, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board denied plaintiff's claim in part because of lack of proper notice and claim.

We also do not believe that the Due Process Clause of the state constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 17, affords plaintiff the procedural protections he has unsuccessfully sought under the federal constitution. In White v Revere Copper Brass, Inc, 14 Mich. App. 31; 165 N.W.2d 454 (1968), rev'd on other grounds 383 Mich. 457; 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970), this Court held that a member of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board who was not appointed to the board until after oral argument had already been heard in a particular case could participate in the decision of the case without violating the plaintiff's right to due process. We hereby reaffirm the vitality of the White case insofar as it disposes of the due process claim advanced in the instant case.

Our powers of review are, thus, limited to reviewing the record for errors of law. On appeal, plaintiff relies on the case of White v Revere Copper Brass, Inc, 383 Mich. 457; 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970), specifically to that portion of White which provides: "Although the appeal board could have expressly rejected plaintiff's testimony * * *, it could not properly deduce from the only evidence in the record that no notice was given. * * * The appeal board cannot draw inferences contrary to undisputed evidence."

We note that the transcript does not show that the referee made any findings as to plaintiff's demeanor or stride. In White v Revere Copper Brass, Inc, 383 Mich. 457, 462-463; 175 N.W.2d 774, 777 (1970), the Court stated: "The appeal board cannot draw inferences contrary to undisputed evidence. * * *

Even if the MUIA's argument was factually supported—and it clearly is not—the MUIA's argument would fail on its merits. In White v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. , 383 Mich. 457, 461–463, 175 N.W.2d 774 (1970), a case factually similar to the one before us, our Supreme Court stated: A careful review of the record reveals that the only evidence relating to the question of notice was that positively averred and testified to by plaintiff.

The Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board is the trier of fact in compensation cases and makes its own determinations as to credibility of witnesses and weight to be given their testimony. White v. Revere Copper Brass, Inc. (1970), 383 Mich. 457. The finding of fact by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board will not be reversed by courts on appeal if findings of fact are supported by the record, in the absence of fraud.