Baldwin v. Chrysler Corp., Docket No. 23292
| Decision Date | 27 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 23292 |
| Citation | 240 N.W.2d 266,67 Mich.App. 61 |
| Parties | Carlton BALDWIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Dfendant, and Second Injury Fund, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Hayim I. Gross, Detroit, for Chrysler.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., A. C. Stoddard and David J. Watts, Asst. Attys. Gen., for Second Injury.
Kelman, Loria, Downing & Schneider by Rodger G. Will, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and QUINN and NOBLE, * JJ.
Second Injury Fund appeals from a decision by the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board which awarded plaintiff total and permanent disability benefits from January 12, 1946. It is undisputed that plaintiff is entitled to benefits. The issue is when do those benefits begin.
Plaintiff was injured August 17, 1943, while employed by defendant Chrysler Corporation. As a result of the injury, plaintiff's left leg was amputated. Prior to this injury, plaintiff lost the industrial use of his right leg due to polio. Defendant Chrysler Corporation voluntarily paid the specific loss benefits for 200 weeks as the statute then required. The 200-week period expired July 5, 1947. Thereafter, plaintiff was steadily employed elsewhere until 1970.
February 10, 1972, plaintiff first petitioned for total and permanent disability benefits. M.C.L.A. § 418.833(1); M.S.A. § 17.237(833)(1) provides:
'If payment of compensation is made, other than medical expenses, and an application for further compensation is later filed with the bureau, no compensation shall be ordered for any period which is more than one year prior to the date of filing of such application.'
We do not read the foregoing as a statute of limitations, but rather as a limit on the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's authority to order the payment of benefits. Thus any benefits awarded prior to February 10, 1971, would not be authorized by law, and the order appealed from is erroneous as far as it requires payments prior to February 10, 1971.
This conclusion makes moot the second issue.
The Workmen's Compensation Appal Board ordered six per cent interest on accrued benefits. Plaintiff concedes this was error and that the interest rate should be five per cent.
The order appealed from is amended to require benefit payments retroactive to February 10, 1971, with five per cent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franks v. White Pine Copper Div., Copper Range Co.
...legal and policy grounds, citing Loucks v. Bauman, 356 Mich. 514; 97 N.W.2d 321 [422 MICH 685] (1959), and Baldwin v. Chrysler Corp., 67 Mich.App. 61, 240 N.W.2d 266 (1976). 402 Mich. 384-386, 263 N.W.2d 246 (Coleman, J., dissenting The majority opinion in Franks discusses the Kleinschrodt,......
-
Howard v. General Motors Corp.
...a failure to raise the rule.6 Apparently the Court of Appeals did not interpret Kushay as overruling Loucks. In Baldwin v. Chrysler Corp, 67 Mich.App. 61, 240 N.W.2d 266 (1976), it applied the one-year-back rule as a limitation of authority.The plaintiff, in Baldwin, was injured in 1943. De......
-
Rice v. Michigan Sugar Co.
...for compensation based on separate results or consequences of a single injury. Appellant relies heavily on Baldwin v. Chrysler Corp., 67 Mich.App. 61, 240 N.W.2d 266 (1976). This reliance is In Baldwin, plaintiff had lost the use of his right leg due to polio. He then lost his left leg in a......
-
Bailey v. General Motors Corp., Truck and Coach Division
...rule is not applicable. In order to avoid this result, defendant relies heavily upon this Court's decision in Baldwin v. Chrysler Corp., 67 Mich.App. 61, 240 N.W.2d 266 (1976). In Baldwin it was held that the "one-year back" rule is not a statute of limitations, which can be waived by a fai......