Jones v. Douglas & Lomason

Michigan Court of Appeals

Jones v. Douglas & Lomason

222 N.W.2d 229, 55 Mich. App. 323, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 823

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 28, 1974

DocketDocket 18177

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 222 N.W.2d 229 (Jones v. Douglas & Lomason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Douglas & Lomason, 222 N.W.2d 229, 55 Mich. App. 323, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 823 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by defendant Douglas & Lomason from the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board’s affirmance of a referee’s award of benefits to plaintiff-appellee Jones. The findings that Jones was injured and that his injury was compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act are not contested here. The sole issue presented for review is whether "notice of the injury [was] given to the employer within 3 months after the happening thereof’. 1

The determination of that issue is a question of fact for the appeal board. See Williams v Chrysler Corp, 29 Mich App 398, 401; 185 NW2d 403, 404 (1971), and cases cited therein. The appeal board held that "[t]he defendant’s defenses of failure of notice is [sic] not well taken”. The board thus impliedly found that the notice provision had been complied with. Accordingly, we must affirm this finding if it is supported by any evidence. Fergus v Chrysler Corp, 45 Mich App 196, 199; 206 NW2d 521, 522 (1973), rev’d on other grounds, 389 Mich 811 (1973); Williams v Chrysler Corp, supra.

There is ample evidence in the record to satisfy *325 this narrow standard of review. Jones’ uncontradicted testimony indicates that he informed the company foreman of a back injury minutes after its occurrence. Notice to the foreman is notice to the employer and sufficient to meet the demands of MCLA 418.381; MSA 17.237(381). Norris v Chrysler Corp, 391 Mich 469, 476; 216 NW2d 783 (1974); Banks v Packard Motor Car Co, 328 Mich 513; 44 NW2d 166 (1950); West v Northern Tree Co, 365 Mich 402; 112 NW2d 423 (1961). Moreover, Douglas & Lomason received word within the statutory time limit that Jones had been treated and hospitalized for a back injury and that a hemilaminectomy had been performed. Such information, in addition to the notice given the foreman, was ample to make Douglas & Lomason "aware that an injury has been sustained”. Norris, supra, at p 477.

The opinion of the appeal board is affirmed.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

1

MCLA 412.15; MSA 17.165, now identically MCLA 418.381; MSA 17.237(381).

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by defendant Douglas & Lomason from the Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board’s affirmance of a referee’s award of benefits to plaintiff-appellee Jones. The findings that Jones was injured and that his injury was compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act are not contested here. The sole issue presented for review is whether "notice of the injury [was] given to the employer within 3 months after the happening thereof’. 1

The determination of that issue is a question of fact for the appeal board. See Williams v Chrysler Corp, 29 Mich App 398, 401; 185 NW2d 403, 404 (1971), and cases cited therein. The appeal board held that "[t]he defendant’s defenses of failure of notice is [sic] not well taken”. The board thus impliedly found that the notice provision had been complied with. Accordingly, we must affirm this finding if it is supported by any evidence. Fergus v Chrysler Corp, 45 Mich App 196, 199; 206 NW2d 521, 522 (1973), rev’d on other grounds, 389 Mich 811 (1973); Williams v Chrysler Corp, supra.

There is ample evidence in the record to satisfy *325 this narrow standard of review. Jones’ uncontradicted testimony indicates that he informed the company foreman of a back injury minutes after its occurrence. Notice to the foreman is notice to the employer and sufficient to meet the demands of MCLA 418.381; MSA 17.237(381). Norris v Chrysler Corp, 391 Mich 469, 476; 216 NW2d 783 (1974); Banks v Packard Motor Car Co, 328 Mich 513; 44 NW2d 166 (1950); West v Northern Tree Co, 365 Mich 402; 112 NW2d 423 (1961). Moreover, Douglas & Lomason received word within the statutory time limit that Jones had been treated and hospitalized for a back injury and that a hemilaminectomy had been performed. Such information, in addition to the notice given the foreman, was ample to make Douglas & Lomason "aware that an injury has been sustained”. Norris, supra, at p 477.

The opinion of the appeal board is affirmed.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

1

MCLA 412.15; MSA 17.165, now identically MCLA 418.381; MSA 17.237(381).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 N.W.2d 229, 55 Mich. App. 323, 1974 Mich. App. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-douglas-lomason-michctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack