Detroyer v. Ernst Kern Co.

277 N.W. 199, 282 Mich. 689, 1937 Mich. LEXIS 580
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 7, 1937
DocketDocket No. 116, Calendar No. 39,166.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 277 N.W. 199 (Detroyer v. Ernst Kern Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Detroyer v. Ernst Kern Co., 277 N.W. 199, 282 Mich. 689, 1937 Mich. LEXIS 580 (Mich. 1937).

Opinions

Btitzel, J.

Plaintiff, after receiving compensation for about four weeks under an approved agreement, signed a document on the form supplied by the department entitled, “supplemental agreement suspending further payment of compensation,” in which there is contained a stipulation that if further disability from the injuries should thereafter develop, the agreement would not bar plaintiff’s right to petition the department for such further and added compensation as she may be entitled to. Shortly after the agreement was approved by the department of labor and industry, plaintiff filed a petition asking for further compensation, alleging that she was still disabled and under the care of a doctor. Testimony was taken and compensation allowed. Defendants on appeal complain that plaintiff was not entitled to further compensation without alleging and proving a subsequent change in her physical condition showing a greater disability than existed at the time the agreement to suspend compensation was entered into.

The same question was presented in Miller v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 279 Mich. 592, wherein the majority opinion of the court held against defendants’ contentions.

The award is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Fead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Bhshnell,, Sharpe, Potter, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones-Jennings v. Hutzel Hospital
565 N.W.2d 680 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1997)
Sobotka v. Chrysler Corp.
523 N.W.2d 454 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1994)
Pulver v. Dundee Cement Co.
492 N.W.2d 778 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1992)
Bower v. Whitehall Leather Co.
312 N.W.2d 640 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1981)
Zelinckas v. Ford Motor Co.
293 N.W. 732 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1940)
Goines v. Kelsey Hayes Wheel Co.
292 N.W. 686 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1940)
Casey v. Escanaba & Lake Superior Railroad
287 N.W. 538 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
Hayward v. Kalamazoo Stove Co.
288 N.W. 483 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1939)
Seppi v. Ford Motor Co.
279 N.W. 881 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)
Roundtree v. Ford Motor Co.
277 N.W. 860 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 N.W. 199, 282 Mich. 689, 1937 Mich. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detroyer-v-ernst-kern-co-mich-1937.