Butler v. Millman
| Decision Date | 08 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 55.,55. |
| Citation | 271 Mich. 113,259 N.W. 877 |
| Parties | BUTLER v. MILLMAN et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Jess Butler, claimant, opposed by John Millman, employer, and the Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, insurance carrier. From a judgment affirming award for partial disability, employer and insurance carrier appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Harold S. Knight, of Detroit, for appellants.
William C. Brown, of Lansing, for appellee.
Following a compensable accident and payments under an approved agreement, a final settlement receipt and final report were filed and approved. Defendant's petition to stop payment, which had previously been filed, was then dismissed. Plaintiff some six months later filed a petition for further compensation, which represented that he was still suffering as the result of his accidental injury, the proofs showing partial disability. The deputy's award for partial disability was reviewed on application of both parties, and affirmed. Defendants claim that, since there is neither allegation nor proof of a change for the worse in plaintiff's condition, he cannot recover, and the board therefore could not reopen the case because the approved settlement receipt has the effect of a valid award, Plaintiff infers that the settlement receipt was obtained by a fraudulent promise of reemployment, but, realizing that his remedy is in equity and not before the department, Panozzo v. Ford Motor Co., 255 Mich. 149, 237 N. W. 369, he does not urge that phase of the matter.
The remaining question is controlled by Richards v. Rogers Boiler & Burner Co., 252 Mich. 52, 234 N. W. 428. Our recent language in Glavin v. Michigan State Highway Dept., 269 Mich. 672, 257 N. W. 753, decided December 11, 1934, applies as well to approved settlement receipts, and such an approval has the force of an award.
Plaintiff relies on the following portion of department rule 29 then in effect: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayward v. Kalamazoo Stove Co.
...The case is ruled in all particulars by the unanimous opinion of this court, written by Justice Bushnell in Butler v. Millman, 271 Mich. 113, 259 N.W. 877, 878, where we held that approved settlement receipts have the force of an award, and the language of rule 29 of the department is witho......
-
Gustafson v. Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc.
...matters therein agreed upon such as the employee, the employer, as well as the nature and extent of the disability. See Butler v. Millman, 271 Mich. 113, 259 N.W. 877. In the instant case, if plaintiff is to recover, he must produce evidence that there has been a change in his physical cond......
-
Giampa v. Chrysler Corp.
...Defendants contend the proviso should be stricken because the approval of a settlementreceipt must be unconditional, Butler v. Millman, 271 Mich. 113, 259 N. W. 877, the order must be given effect as a complete settlement to its date, and there was no change of condition after adoption of t......
-
Sheker v. Quealy
... ... compensation." See cases cited thereunder. See, also, ... Chittenden v. Jarvis, S.D., 297 N.W. 787; Butler v. Millman, ... 271 Mich. 113, 259 N.W. 877 ... We repeat, ... there could be no change of condition in the case at bar. We ... ...