Carter v. City of Detroit, Bd. of Ed.

Decision Date04 December 1975
Docket NumberDocket No. 22384
CitationCarter v. City of Detroit, Bd. of Ed., 238 N.W.2d 419, 66 Mich.App. 128 (Mich. App. 1975)
PartiesJames CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant. 66 Mich.App. 128, 238 N.W.2d 419
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan

[66 MICHAPP 129]Le Vasseur, Werner, Mitseff & Brown, by Grahame G. Capp, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Isadore Goldbaum, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and McGREGOR and KAUFMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board(hereinafter referred to as WCAB), which affirmed the referee's order of October 18, 1972.The referee awarded the plaintiff compensation because of a January 16, 1968 injury that caused the dislocation of the plaintiff's shoulder.

After applying for appeal to the WCAB on October 31, 1972, the defendant moved for the taking of additional testimony on September 4, 1974.In its motion, the defendant indicated the following ground:

'1.That the offer of surgery and plaintiff's refusal are undisputed facts and are relevant and material to the disposition of this Workmen's Compensation case.'

The defendant further raised and argued this issue to the WCAB in its brief.The WCAB denied this motion on September 16, 1974.The defendant raised a similar motion on October 3, 1974 and the WCAB similarly denied the second motion for the taking of additional testimony on October 17, 1974.

In the record before the WCAB, the only acknowledgment[66 MICHAPP 130] of hte surgical-offer issue by the plaintiff was in the plaintiff's brief of August 29, 1974.Therein, the plaintiff took the position that the offer was not properly before the WCAB because the review by the WCAB was limited to the record of the hearing and the decision of the referee, and no surgical offer was made prior to the decision of the referee.

There is no indication in either of the above denials of the defendant's motions that the WCAB addressed itself to the surgical-offer issue.In its final disposition of the case, the WCAB opinion of November 7, 1974 stated in pertinent part:

'It is clear plaintiff is disabled because of the January 16, 1968 injury which resulted in the original dislocation.This type of injury rendered all succeeding dislocations predictable.Conceding, arguendo, that the May 9, 1969 injury in the car was the occasion of the employment, the weight of the evidence inexorably flows back to the original injury date.

'In all other respects, the order of the Referee is affirmed, there specifically being no record support for stopping compensation on any basis as of the date of hearing (September 25, 1972.)'

The first four issues raised on appeal all deal with the alleged surgical offer by the defendant which was rejected by the plaintiff.

The WCAB may hear such additional evidence as in its discretion it may allow.M.C.L.A. § 418.859;M.S.A. § 17.237 (859).Further, the WCAB is not bound by the findings of fact made by the referee, but, rather, the review of the referee's decision by the WCAB is De novo.Herrala v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 43 Mich.App. 154, 157, 203 N.W.2d 752(1972).Thus, the WCAB may receive additional [66 MICHAPP 131] facts on the record and draw its own conclusions from them.

In the present case, the WCAB could have heard, in its discretion, such additional testimony as was necessary to determine the plaintiff's just compensation.Therefore, the defendant did properly raise an issue that the WCAB could deal with on review.

Where an issue was properly raised, but it is not apparent from the record how the WCAB decided it, a remand is necessary for an appropriate finding by the WCAB because this Court...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Kozlowski v. Chrysler Corp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 3 d2 Maio d2 1977
    ...and permanent disability? Strict application of the "but for" test would require an award. See, e.g., Carter v. Detroit Board of Education, 66 Mich.App. 128, 238 N.W.2d 419 (1975); Nemeth v. Michigan Building Components, 390 Mich. 734, 213 N.W.2d 144 (1973). But without benefit of briefing ......
  • Kingery v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 1 d3 Setembro d3 1982
    ...v. Marquette Iron Mining Co., 405 Mich. 105, 135, 274 N.W.2d 411 (1979). As [116 MICHAPP 614] stated in Carter v. Detroit Board of Education, 66 Mich.App. 128, 130, 238 N.W.2d 419 (1975): "The WCAB may hear such additional evidence as in its discretion it may allow. M.C.L.A. Sec. 418.859; M......
  • Nelson v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Assembly Plant
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 6 d5 Maio d5 1983
    ...Mich. 105, 274 N.W.2d 411 (1979); Paige v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 91 Mich.App. 408, 283 N.W.2d 758 (1978); Carter v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 66 Mich.App. 128, 238 N.W.2d 419 (1975). As part of that function of review, the Appeal Board, not the referee, makes the final, binding findings of fa......
  • Gilmer v. General Motors Corp., Fisher Body Division, Fleetwood Plant
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 5 d4 Janeiro d4 1978
    ...in reaching its conclusion". McClary v. Wagoner, 16 Mich.App. 326, 328, 167 N.W.2d 800 (1969). See, also, Carter v. Detroit Board of Education,66 Mich.App. 128, 238 N.W.2d 419 (1975), Gibbs v. Keebler Co., 56 Mich.App. 690, 224 N.W.2d 698 (1974), Moore v. Gundelfinger, 56 Mich.App. 73, 223 ......
  • Get Started for Free