Kolenko v. U.S. Rubber Prods., Inc., 10.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 10.,10. |
| Citation | 285 Mich. 159,280 N.W. 148 |
| Parties | KOLENKO v. UNITED STATES RUBBER PRODUCTS, Inc. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Marie Kolenko, formerly Marie Jurek, opposed by the United States Rubber Products, Incorporated, employer. From an order of the Department of Labor and Industry awarding claimant compensation for total disability, the employer appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Leo W. Kuhn, of Detroit, for appellant.
Clyde W. Chapman and Colin J. McRae, both of Highland Park, for appellee.
On July 19, 1932, plaintiff sustained an accidental injury in the course of her employment with defendant, which was caused when her right arm was drawn between the rollers of the machine. As a result of the accident she suffered contusion, abrasion and a fracture of the upper third of the right humerus. Pursuant to an approved agreement, she was paid compensation for total disability until December 12, 1932, when compensation was stopped on an approved settlement receipt. Thereafter, plaintiff secured employment at Dodge Brothers where she worked approximately five months, but was unable to continue due to weakness in her right arm.
On February 5, 1936, she filed a petition for further compensation and on August 21, 1936, was awarded compensation for total disability from August 1, 1933, until the further order of the commission. Petition by defendant for a writ of certiorari from the order of the commission was denied. On December 23, 1936, defendant filed petition to stop compensation which was dismissed by the deputy commissioner on February 5, 1937. On February 23, 1937, defendant filed a further petition to stop compensation, and on March 24, 1937, by award of the deputy commissioner, compensation was suspended on the ground of plaintiff's lack of cooperation in refusing to accept employment tendered her by defendant. On appeal to the commission, the award of the deputy commissioner was reversed and an order entered awarding plaintiff compensation for total disability, in keeping with the order of August 21, 1936.
On the hearing, defendant introduced testimony showing that plaintiff had been requested to come to defendant's place of business and that defendant would give her a job. She went to the employment office with her attorneys and was requested to sign an employment card so that she could be assigned to work. Both plaintiff and her attorneys asked to be advised of the kind of work she would be expected to do, but plaintiff testified that the defendant refused to tell her of the nature of the job. Defendant admits that plaintiff's attorneys stated that they wished to go out into the factory and look at the job in order to advise plaintiff as to whether she should accept it, but defendant's manager refused to tell plaintiff what the job consisted of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nederhood v. Cadillac Malleable Iron Co.
...the suspension (voluntary cessation from available favored work) would cease to exist. Maj. op at 398; Kolenko v. United States Rubber Products, Inc., 285 Mich. 159, 280 N.W. 148 (1938). Nonfavored-worker strikers are presumed to be unemployed following the employment of permanent replaceme......
-
Bower v. Whitehall Leather Co.
...that the favored-work doctrine must be tempered with reasonableness. In a major favored-work case, Kolenko v. United States Rubber Products, Inc., 285 Mich. 159, 280 N.W. 148 (1938), the employer refused to describe the nature of the proffered work before demanding that the employee accept ......
-
Hamlin v. Michigan Seat Co.
...work was unrelated to her capacity to perform, she was denied benefits from the date of her refusal. Kolenko v. United States Rubber Products, Inc., 285 Mich. 159, 162, 280 N.W. 148 (1938); Frammolino v. Richmond Products Co., 79 Mich.App. 18, 260 N.W.2d 908 (1977). She appealed to the Work......
-
Price v. City of Westland Police Dept.
...employment must describe with a fair degree of specificity the duties the disabled employee is to perform. Kolenko v. U.S. Rubber Products, Inc., 285 Mich. 159, 280 N.W. 148 (1938). Specific employment with established responsibilities within the employee's limitations must be presented for......