Adams v. C. O. Barton Co.

Decision Date06 January 1936
Docket NumberNo. 55.,55.
Citation264 N.W. 333,274 Mich. 175
PartiesADAMS v. C. O. BARTON CO. et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Richard Adams, claimant, opposed by the C. O. Barton Company, employer, and the Michigan Mutual Liability Company, insurer. From an award of the Department of Labor and Industry stopping compensation, the claimant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Floyd T. Schermerhorn, of Detroit, for appellant.

L. J. Carey and George J. Cooper, both of Detroit, for appellees.

POTTER, Justice.

June 17, 1931, plaintiff fell 45 feet, injured his back, and fractured his ankle. He was paid compensation for total disability for some time, but returned to work August 29, 1933, at 45 cents an hour for ordinary work and 60 cents an hour for carpenter work. September 5, 1933, a petition was filed by defendants to stop compensation, and an award entered reducing plaintiff's compensation to seven dollars a week. Plaintiff continued to work, draw pay, and receive compensation until July 23, 1934, when defendants filed another petition to stop compensation, alleging plaintiff's disability had ceased. An award was made stopping compensation, and plaintiff appeals.

Appellant contends that inasmuch as the first petition alleged that from the information available to defendants, it was their opinion disability had ceased, and the second averred disability had ceased, defendants' second petition ought to have been dismissed because the order entered on the first petition was an adjudication, and the second petition in reality asked for a rehearing on the first petition, the order on which constituted former adjudication.

It is well settled the Department of Labor and Industry has no power to grant a rehearing. The physical condition of the plaintiff, his earning capacity after injury as compared with his earning capacity had he suffered no injury, is the only legitimate basis of an award of compensation. The physical condition of a man constantly changes. Plaintiff's physical condition November 1, 1933, is not conclusive of his physical condition July 23, 1934. Plaintiff had been originally awarded full compensation. He was unable to work at all immediately after his injury. At the hearing November 1, 1933, he was found to be yet partially disabled although he was then working, and his compensation was reduced to $7 a week. July 23, 1934, defendants filed the last petition to stop compensation, averring plaintiff's disability has ceased. It had a right to do so and, if the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Hayward v. Kalamazoo Stove Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1939
    ...total disability as found by the Commission; and on this review by certiorari that finding must be affirmed.' In Adams v. C. O. Barton Co., 274 Mich. 175, 264 N.W. 333, 334, it was said: ‘An adjudication of what the man's physical condition is at one time is ordinarily no evidence of what h......
  • Kosiel v. Arrow Liquors Corp.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • August 26, 1994
    ...condition is at one time is ordinarily no evidence of what his physical condition may be a year later," Adams v. C.O. Barton Co., 274 Mich. 175, 177-178, 264 N.W. 333 (1936), the need for, and the cost of, nursing care is not static, but is subject to Necessary adjustment of the compensatio......
  • Smith v. Pontiac Motor Car Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1936
    ...held the employee is not entitled to an award except upon showing a change for the worse in his physical condition. Adams v. C. O. Barton Co., 274 Mich. 175, 264 N.W. 333;Dyer v. McQuistion, 273 Mich. 327, 263 N.W. 73;Roe v. Daily Record, 273 Mich. 5, 262 N.W. 330;Martin v. Kalamazoo, etc.,......
  • Mikulski v. Hudson Motor Car Co.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1943
    ...v. Ford Motor Co., 296 Mich. 348, 296 N.W. 284;Schneyder v. Cadillac Motor Car Co., 280 Mich. 127, 273 N.W. 418;Adams v. C. O. Barton Co., 274 Mich. 175, 264 N.W. 333;Klum v. Lutes-Sinclair Co., 236 Mich. 100, 210 N.W. 251;Estate of Beckwith v. Spooner, 183 Mich. 323, 149 N.W. 971, Ann.Cas.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT