Johnson v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | CLEVELAND-CLIFFS,No. 22,22 |
| Citation | 356 Mich. 387,96 N.W.2d 750 |
| Parties | Carl O. JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.IRON COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Aaron Lowenstein, Negaunee, for plaintiff and appellant.
Davidson & Clancey, Ishpeming, for defendant and appellee, Walter L. Hansen, Ishpeming, of counsel.
Before the Entire Bench, except VOELKER, J.
Plaintiff's claim is for compensation for specific loss of the distal phalange of the middle finger of his left hand. Amputation of 3/4 of it was necessitated by an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The workmen's compensation appeal board denied compensation for specific loss of the entire phalange under the holdings of this Court in Fanning v. W. E. Wood Co., 255 Mich. 618, 238 N.W. 627, and Van Eps v. Sligh Furniture Co., 257 Mich. 112, 241 N.W. 182. Since then, a majority of this Court, in an opinion not shared by this writer, overruled those cases and held such loss to constitute the loss of the entire phalange within the meaning of the specific loss provisions of the statute. Palazzolo v. Bradley, 355 Mich. 284, 94 N.W.2d 203. That must be considered conclusive now of that question in this case.
Defendant urges, in defense of the appeal board's denial of compensation for specific loss, that because the amputation occurred July 13, 1951, and no claim for compensation for specific loss was made until December 4, 1957, more than six years later, plaintiff is barred from recovery by virtue of the provisions of C.L.1948, § 412.15 (Stat.Ann. § 17.165), requiring a claim to be made within six months after injury, and because of unreasonable delay as defined in Henderson v. Consumers Power Co., 301 Mich. 564, 4 N.W.2d 10, and Napolion v. National Concrete Metal Forms Corp., 279 Mich. 668, 273 N.W. 309. This issue was duly raised below, but the appeal board did not pass on it, having denied compensation on the ground first above considered. To this defense plaintiff says a number of answers suggest themselves. One of them may possess merit. It is that, in plaintiff's words, 'no report sufficient under the statute to start limitations was filed'. Plaintiff relies on the provision of the above mentioned section of the statute that the limitation shall not start to run against the employee's claim until the employer has filed a report of the injury with the commission as required by statute. In that connection plaintiff ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Autio v. Proksch Const. Co.
...six-year limitational period with regard to compensation claims was of questionable soundness. See Johnson v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company (1959), 356 Mich. 387, 96 N.W.2d 750. There defendant argued, Inter alia, that because plaintiff's injury-induced amputation occurred in July, 1951, wh......
-
Thomas v. Griffin Wheel Co.
...Railway (1916), 190 Mich. 507, 515, 157 N.W. 45. We doubt it would be willing to do so today. In Johnson v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company (1959), 356 Mich. 387, 389, 96 N.W.2d 750, 752, the Supreme Court remanded, after reversing a holding against the employee on the merits, for determinati......
-
Medacco v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co., Division of Textron, Inc.
...issue was decided, a remand for an appropriate finding by the appeal board is necessary on this issue also. Johnson v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 356 Mich. 387, 96 N.W.2d 750 (1959). Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this * JAMES P. CHURCHILL, Circuit Judge for the 40th ......
-
Carter v. City of Detroit, Bd. of Ed.
...is necessary for an appropriate finding by the WCAB because this Court will not consider it on appeal. Johnson v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 356 Mich. 387, 96 N.W.2d 750 (1959), Medacco v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co., 48 Mich.App. 217, 229, 210 N.W.2d 360 As the present record does......