Burley v. Cent. Paper Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
| Citation | 192 N.W. 538,221 Mich. 595 |
| Parties | BURLEY v. CENTRAL PAPER CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub. Acts 1912 [Ex. Sess.] No. 10) by William C. Burley, employee, for additional compensation opposed by the Central Paper Company, employer, and the Travelers' Insurance Company, insurance carrier. The Department of Labor and Industry awarded additional compensation, and the employer and insurance carrier bring certiorari. Award vacated.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, and STEERE, JJ.Vandeveer & Foster, of Detroit (Berg, Clancey & Randall, of Ishpeming, of counsel), for appellants.
R. W. Nebel, of Munising, for appellee.
This case is here for review on writ of certiorari to the Department of Labor and Industry.
While employed as a skilled sawyer by the Central Paper Company of Nogi, Mich., on the 10th day of June, 1913, William C. Burley suffered a severe injury to three fingers of his right hand, resulting in the amputation of one-half of the third finger and of the second and fourth fingers at the knuckles.
At the time of the accident his weekly wage was $27.
On the 16th of July, 1913, by agreement, the plaintiff received $650 compensation at the rate of $10 per week for a period of 65 weeks for the loss of three fingers. Thereafter, on the 22d day of May, 1916, on the theory that he had lost the complete use of his right hand as a result of the injury, a supplemental agreement was entered into wherein it was agreed that plaintiff should be paid $10 a week for 85 weeks, which payment, together with the amount previously paid, was understood to be compensation for loss of the hand under section 10 of the act for a period of 150 weeks at $10 a week. This settlement was approved by the board, and payment was made in full in accordance therewith.
On the 23d of September, 1921, the plaintiff filed a petition with the board to reopen the case and to be allowed compensation for total disability. A hearing was had before a deputy commissioner, who found that the petitioner was totally disabled and was entitled to compensation at $10 per week for 400 weeks, or $4,000, but that defendants should be credited with the amount previously paid for the loss of the hand, leaving a balance of $2,500 payable to the plaintiff.
The defendants appealed to the board, where the decision of the commissioner was affirmed.
They are now here asking to have the award vacated for the following reasons:
First, that the settlement of May 22, 1916, which was filed with the board and approved by it, was conclusive, and that the board had thereafter no jurisdiction to grant a rehearing;
Second, that there was no evidence to support the findings; and,
Third, that having been paid for the loss of a member he was not entitled to compensation for total disability.
Did the board have jurisdiction to open the case and grant plaintiff a rehearing?
The settlement of May 22, 1916, was for the loss of a hand. It was approved by the board. Full payment was made thereunder and final settlement receipts were signed and filed. No appeal was taken, but some time thereafter the plaintiff filed a petition to reopen the case, claiming that he was totally disabled by reason of injuries to his arm and hand, and that he had signed the settlement in ignorance of his rights under the facts and the law, having been induced to do so by misrepresentation of the defendant company. On the hearing no attempt was made to support the claim that the settlement was induced through fraud or misrepresentation. The board, however, for other reasons did not regard the settlement as having any binding effect, but credited defendants with the amount paid thereunder. Counsel insists that in this the board was in error; that the settlement was conclusive, ‘the legal equivalent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hustead v. H. E. Brown Timber Company
... ... App.) 27 S.W.2d 529; Pedlow v. Swartz Electric ... Co., 68 Ind.App. 400, 120 N.E. 603; Burley v ... Central Paper Co., 221 Mich. 595, 192 N.W. 538; ... Miller v. Keene, 232 Mich. 596, 206 ... ...
-
Webber v. Steiger Lumber Co.
...for the periods either before or after July 15, 1946. Rice v. J. F. Braun and Son, 271 Mich. 532, 261 N.W. 84;Burley v. Central Paper Co., 221 Mich. 595, 192 N.W. 538;Harris v. Castile Mining Co., 222 Mich. 709, 193 N.W. 855; Nevels v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., supra; Thomas v. Ford Motor Co.......
-
Sweet v. Eddy Paper Corp.
...in plaintiff's physical condition, the Department was wholly without jurisdiction when it entered the 1932 award. Burley v. Central Paper Co., 221 Mich. 595, 192 N.W. 538;Righi v. Robert Gage Coal Co., 269 Mich. 46, 256 N.W. 617; See, also, Fawcett v. Department, of Labor and Industry, 282 ......
-
Smith v. Pontiac Motor Car Co.
...v. Construction Co., 207 Mich. 618, 175 N.W. 126;Jones v. St. Joseph Iron Works, 212 Mich. 174, 180 N.W. 374;Burley v. Central Paper Co., 221 Mich. 595, 192 N.W. 538;Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 232 Mich. 500, 205 N.W. 588;Miller v. Keene, 232 Mich. 596, 206 N.W. 524. When an award has been ......