Giampa v. Chrysler Corp.

• Decision Date: 09 September 1935
• Docket Number: No. 38.,38.
• Citation: 272 Mich. 327,262 N.W. 259
• Parties: GIAMPA v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

272 Mich. 327

262 N.W. 259

GIAMPA

v.CHRYSLER CORPORATION.

No. 38.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 9, 1935.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John Giampa, employee, opposed by the Chrysler Corporation, employer. From an adverse order of the Department of Labor and Industry, the employer appeals in the nature of certiorari.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, of Detroit, for appellant.

Sol A. Dann, of Detroit, for appellee.

FEAD, Justice.

This is certiorari to review an award of compensation.

Plaintiff sustained an accidental injury July 24, 1928. He was paid compensation to September 16 under approved agreement. Settlement receipt was filed November 10, but was not approved by the department. Plaintiff continued to work for defendant until November 7, 1929. He has not worked since. His condition has become progressively worse and he has been totally disabled since leaving defendant's employ. He made no claim for further compensation until April 12, 1934, when he filed the instant petition for that purpose. He was awarded compensation for total disability from November 7, 1929.

Defendant contends that compensation, if allowed, should commence on the filing of the petition for further compensation because of plaintiff's laches. The statute suggests no such defense. Delay may go to the good faith and integrity of the claim and properly may be considered by the department in connection with other evidence. See Louwaert v. D. Graff & Sons, 256 Mich. 387, 240 N. W. 44. But once the department takes jurisdiction of an injury it retains it to the end of the compensable period to award such compensation as the statute allows and the facts warrant. Jelusich v. Wisconsin Land & Lumber Co., 267 Mich. 313, 255 N. W. 920;Rowe v. Consumers' Power Co., 268 Mich. 162, 255 N. W. 749. Both extent and commencement of plaintiff's disability were questions of fact, not of jurisdiction.

On July 17, 1933, the department made general order No. 30, approving all settlement receipts filed prior to April 17, 1932, in which no proceedings had been had within one year before such date, with like effect as if the order had been specifically entered in each case, providing, however, that the employee may at any time file application for further compensation and for an award when warranted by the facts.

Defendants contend the proviso should be stricken because the approval of a settlementreceipt must be...