Anderson v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 55.,55.
• Citation: 232 Mich. 500,205 N.W. 588
• Parties: ANDERSON v. FORD MOTOR CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

232 Mich. 500

205 N.W. 588

ANDERSON

v.FORD MOTOR CO.

No. 55.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 27, 1925.

Certiorari to Industrial Accident Board.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George R. Anderson, claimant, opposed by the Ford Motor Company, employer. An award was granted by the Industrial Accident Board, and the employer brings certiorari. Award vacated.

Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARKE, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. George H. Anderson, for appellant.

Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellee.

WIEST, J.

December 16, 1922, while working at common labor in defendant's employ, plaintiff, in lifting a plank, sprained his back. He quit work for 3 1/2 weeks, and then returned and worked at lighter labor until early in March, when he decided to take a rest and left defendant's employ. He changed his mind about taking a rest, and wanted to return to work for defendant, but was not taken back, and, after seeking other employment and declining two offers because the work was too heavy, he secured work in a restaurant May 17, 1923, and was working there at the time of his first and second hearings for compensation. April 28, 1923, he made application for compensation, stating therein that the injury to his back caused him to lose three weeks' time. He was then suffering with his back a great deal, and asked $28 for two weeks' compensation, and such other relief as he was entitled to have under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 5423-5495). This petition was heard by a deputy commissioner May 20, 1924, and testimony taken. Plaintiff then claimed his injury incapacitated him from performing heavy labor. At that hearing he testified:

‘Then I went to the first aid several times, and then it stopped hurting, and I went back to work, and it has been settling in my back since I left the Ford Motor Company. It is hurting a little now, so far as that goes. * * * All I know is that I suffered with my back from lifting that plank, and have been suffering practically ever since. My back is hurting right now from it; that is, it has not got well since.'

He also stated that his claim was limited to $28 for lost time and about $1.75 for liniment, etc. He was awarded compensation for 2 1/2 weeks at $14 per week, and $1.75 for medical expenditures. This award was paid by defendant and receipt given by plaintiff.

August 27, 1924, plaintiff filed another petition, in which he alleged the same injury and the award mentioned, and--

‘Your petitioner further represents that since March 25, 1924, he has been disabled in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the said injury and is entitled to further compensation. Your petitioner further represents that he worked as best and as long as he was able considering the condition of his back, but that on or about the 25th day of March, 1924, he became no longer able to continue in the heavy work at which he was then employed, and that he was promised lighter work, but was never assigned same; that since said time he has had several opportunities to obtain other employment, but could not accept same because of the condition of his back caused by the original injury on December 16, 1924; that as a result thereof he was entirely out of employment since the 25th of March, 1924, to May 17, 1924, and that from May 17, 1924, to date he has been making $13 per week doing light work at a restaurant.'

Upon a hearing, and over objection, he was awarded $7.80 per week from May 21, 1924, to September 16, 1924. The order suspended payment after September 16th because defendant had offered plaintiff a job which it was admitted he could perform. This petition on its face was for a rehearing pure and simple, and should not have been acted upon. The board may neither grant or hold a rehearing. Harris v. Castile Mining Co., 222 Mich. 709, 193 N. W. 855;Levanen v. Seneca Copper...