Carlisle v. General Motors Corp., AC Spark Plug Div., Docket No. 61937
| Decision Date | 01 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 61937 |
| Parties | Angelia K. CARLISLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, AC SPARK PLUG DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
MacDonald, FitzGerald & MacDonald, P.C. by R. Duncan MacDonald, Flint, for plaintiff-appellant.
Munroe & Nobach, P.C. by Richard R. Weiser, East Lansing, for defendant-appellee.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and CYNAR and MOES, * JJ.
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from a Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) decision which reversed a hearing referee's award of compensation benefits to plaintiff.
On July 7, 1978, plaintiff filed a petition for hearing with the Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation, alleging a physical and psychological disability. A hearing was held on her petition on April 17, 1979. The referee found that plaintiff had proven that she suffered from a continuing, compensable disability to her right upper extremity and a continuing, compensable emotional disability which had been repeatedly aggravated by her employment.
Defendant appealed the referee's decision, and the WCAB, by a two-to-one majority, reversed the decision, finding that plaintiff failed to prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff applied to this Court for leave to appeal the WCAB's decision. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in an order dated March 15, 1982.
Plaintiff first contends that the referee erred in excluding a medical report. We disagree. Workers' compensation tribunals are generally not required to follow the same technical evidentiary rules that apply to jury trials. Blozina v. Castile Mining Co., 210 Mich. 349, 178 N.W. 57 (1920); Holford v. General Motors Corp., 116 Mich.App. 488, 490, 323 N.W.2d 454 (1982). However while the admissibility of evidence is not determined with reference to standards applicable to trials, hearsay is generally held inadmissible in compensation proceedings. See, e.g., Reck v. Whittlesberger, 181 Mich. 463, 148 N.W. 247 (1914); Holford, supra, 116 Mich.App. p. 491, 323 N.W.2d 454; Hawley v. General Motors Corp., 67 Mich.App. 114, 118-119, 240 N.W.2d 290 (1976), lv. den. 397 Mich. 818 (1976).
A physician's report is hearsay unless it falls into an exception or exclusion to the hearsay rules. Jackson v. Depco Equipment Co., 115 Mich.App. 570, 579, 321 N.W.2d 736 (1982). Before such report can be admitted into evidence, the parties must be accorded the right to cross-examine the maker of the report unless such right is waived. Beeler v. General Motors Corp., 32 Mich.App. 661, 663, 189 N.W.2d 64 (1971).
There has been no showing that defendant waived its right to cross-examine the doctor who made the report. The fact that defendant had scheduled the doctor's deposition and then canceled it before the hearing cannot be construed as a waiver of such right because there is no indication in the record that defendant had notice prior to the cancellation of the deposition that plaintiff would rely on the report at the hearing.
Plaintiff argues that the report should have been admitted for impeachment purposes. Plaintiff contends that the report would have made certain testimony by defendant's compensation claims adjustor as to why plaintiff's compensation benefits were terminated less credible. This argument is meritless. The claims adjustor testified that she recommended that plaintiff's claim for compensation benefits be terminated in May 1978, well before she received the report in question. The report had no impeachment value and, contrary to plaintiff's arguments, no relevance concerning the claims adjustor's state of mind when she denied plaintiff's claim for compensation benefits. The report was, therefore, properly excluded.
We also reject plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slayton v. Michigan Host, Inc., Docket No. 73858
...plaintiff should have been accorded the right to cross-examine the maker of the letter, Dr. Maitra. See Carlisle v. General Motors Corp, 126 Mich.App. 127, 129, 337 N.W.2d 4 (1983). Since plaintiff was not accorded this right of cross-examination, we find that the admission of the letter wa......
-
Wilson v. General Motors Corp., Docket Nos. 106198
...hearsay under MRE 801. See Slayton v. Michigan Host, Inc., 144 Mich.App. 535, 551, 376 N.W.2d 664 (1985); Carlisle v. General Motors Corp., 126 Mich.App. 127, 129, 337 N.W.2d 4 (1983). The circuit court properly excluded Martin's Defendant claims that reversal is required because the circui......
-
Yakowich v. DEPT. OF CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVIES
..."are generally not required to follow the same technical evidentiary rules that apply to jury trials." Carlisle v. General Motors Corp., 126 Mich.App. 127, 129, 337 N.W.2d 4 (1983). The one exception to this rule is that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, as provided in the rules o......
-
Cooley v. Ford Motor Co., Docket No. 101583
...rules that apply to jury trials, hearsay is generally held inadmissible in compensation proceedings. Carlisle v. General Motors Corp., 126 Mich.App. 127, 129, 337 N.W.2d 4 (1983). Thus, it was error to admit this testimony. See Green v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 280 Mich. 568, 274 N.W. 331 (193......