Grant v. Chevrolet Motor Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Grant v. Chevrolet Motor Co.

250 N.W. 293, 264 Mich. 510, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1050

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 2, 1933

DocketDocket No. 34, Calendar No. 37,169.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 N.W. 293 (Grant v. Chevrolet Motor 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

Grant v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 250 N.W. 293, 264 Mich. 510, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1050 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

*511 Fead, J.

This is appeal in the nature of certiorari to the department of labor and industry.

September 21, 1926, plaintiff sustained an accident while in the employ of defendant. An agreement for compensation was made and approved. June 1, 1928, petition to stop compensation was filed and, on September 17th, was granted as of May 4, 1928. September 29th settlement receipt was filed but not approved.

August 14, 1929, the case was reopened voluntarily by defendant, and compensation paid to January 11, 1930, when another settlement receipt was filed, but it has not been approved by the department.

January 12,1931, plaintiff filed petition for further compensation. At the hearing plaintiff did not appear. His mother and brother testified that plaintiff did not desire to pursue the claim. February 3d the deputy commissioner made an award denying compensation. August 12,1932, plaintiff filed a petition for further compensation, which, after hearing, was denied by the deputy commissioner, but, on appeal, was granted by the board, and plaintiff was awarded compensation from January 11,1930, at the original agreed rate. No showing of a change for the worse in plaintiff’s condition was made upon either petition for further compensation.

Defendant’s principal contention is that, no appeal having been taken from the award of February 3, 1931, denying further compensation, and no change in plaintiff’s condition since then having been shown, the award is res judicata and final.

The settlement receipt was without force to stop compensation because it was not approved by the department. Richards v. Rogers Boiler & Burner Co., 252 Mich. 52; Lacombe v. Birds Eye Veneer Co., 254 Mich. 233. The petition for further compensa *512 tion was, in legal effect, a petition for review of payments. Gallup v. Western Board & Paper Co., 252 Mich. 68. It was not a petition to stop compensation. Denial of a prior petition to review payments is not res judicata of a later one, nor is it an approval of a settlement unless so provided in the order of the department. Shaffer v. D’Arcy Spring Co., 199 Mich. 537.

Award affirmed, with costs.

McDonald, O. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred. Clark, J., took , no part in this decision.

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

*511 Fead, J.

This is appeal in the nature of certiorari to the department of labor and industry.

September 21, 1926, plaintiff sustained an accident while in the employ of defendant. An agreement for compensation was made and approved. June 1, 1928, petition to stop compensation was filed and, on September 17th, was granted as of May 4, 1928. September 29th settlement receipt was filed but not approved.

August 14, 1929, the case was reopened voluntarily by defendant, and compensation paid to January 11, 1930, when another settlement receipt was filed, but it has not been approved by the department.

January 12,1931, plaintiff filed petition for further compensation. At the hearing plaintiff did not appear. His mother and brother testified that plaintiff did not desire to pursue the claim. February 3d the deputy commissioner made an award denying compensation. August 12,1932, plaintiff filed a petition for further compensation, which, after hearing, was denied by the deputy commissioner, but, on appeal, was granted by the board, and plaintiff was awarded compensation from January 11,1930, at the original agreed rate. No showing of a change for the worse in plaintiff’s condition was made upon either petition for further compensation.

Defendant’s principal contention is that, no appeal having been taken from the award of February 3, 1931, denying further compensation, and no change in plaintiff’s condition since then having been shown, the award is res judicata and final.

The settlement receipt was without force to stop compensation because it was not approved by the department. Richards v. Rogers Boiler & Burner Co., 252 Mich. 52; Lacombe v. Birds Eye Veneer Co., 254 Mich. 233. The petition for further compensa *512 tion was, in legal effect, a petition for review of payments. Gallup v. Western Board & Paper Co., 252 Mich. 68. It was not a petition to stop compensation. Denial of a prior petition to review payments is not res judicata of a later one, nor is it an approval of a settlement unless so provided in the order of the department. Shaffer v. D’Arcy Spring Co., 199 Mich. 537.

Award affirmed, with costs.

McDonald, O. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred. Clark, J., took , no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 N.W. 293, 264 Mich. 510, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-chevrolet-motor-co-mich-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack