Modeen v. Consumers Power Co.
Decision Date | 01 March 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
Citation | 384 Mich. 354,184 N.W.2d 197 |
Parties | Evelyn MODEEN, Widow of Harold Modeen, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams & Dilley by Jerry S. McCroskey, Muskegon, for plaintiff-appellant.
O. K. Petersen, K. K. Cassell, Jackson, Muskegon, for plaintiff-appellant. Rapids (Edward D. Wells, Grand Rapids, of counsel) for defendant-appellee.
Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams & Dilley by Paul A. Williams, Grand Rapids, for amicus curiae Gilbert Mead.
Hayes & Davis, Grand Rapids (Kenneth T. Hayes, Grand Rapids, of counsel), for amicus curiae Peterson-King Co. and U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Before the entire bench.
This proceeding was instituted before the workmen's compensation department. It presents exclusively the same jurisdictional question which, in Mead v. Peterson-King Co., 24 Mich.App. 530, 533--534, 180 N.W.2d 304 (1970), was dealt with by Division 3 as the 'first issue on appeal.' By our order of August 26, 1970, entered upon application for leave to review Mead, the latter was held in abeyance pending decision of the appeal now at bar.
February 13, 1959 Harold Modeen, a regular employee of self-insuring Consumers Power Co., sustained a compensable injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. He engaged counsel (Sessions and Barlow of Muskegon) to sue certain allegedly negligent third parties, pursuant to the 1952 amendment of section 15 of part III of the workmen's compensation law (M.C.L.A. 413.15; M.S.A. 17.189). By agreement of employee Modeen and employer Consumers, the latter did not join in the suit but did cooperate fully with Mr. Modeen in the prosecution thereof. It is stipulated that, as the suit neared trial, '* * * a settlement was reached between Mr. Modeen and Consumers Power Co. on one side and certain of the defendants (Wilde and Reeths) for a total of $75,000.' May 15, 1961 the suit as against defendants Wilde and Reeths was dismissed with prejudice upon stipulation and order of the court. Separately and on the same date the remaining defendant was correspondingly dismissed, apparently without monetary contribution. Excepting as noted in this opinion, all details of the agreed settlement and final disposition of the suit appear in the appeal board's opinion, quoted Post.
The general release of third party defendants Wilde and Reeths was signed by Mr. Modeen and also by his wife. She is the present plaintiff. The release is in the usual unconditional form and needs no expatiation. The release by Consumers Power Co. of the same defendants was executed and delivered separately. Consumers' May 22, 1961 letter to Sessions and Barlow, by which Consumers paid its agreed share of 'attorneys fees and expenses' incurred in connection with the third party suit, reads as follows:
'Gentlemen:
'Enclosed, pursuant to our agreement, is Consumers Power Company's check No. 767, dated May 18, 1961, made payable to Sessions & Barlow, in the amount of $3,450.08.
'This check is in full payment of Consumers Power Company's share of attorneys' fees and expenses in the above matter.'
Mr. Modeen died in 1966 from causes not related to his compensable injury. Shortly thereafter his widow engaged present counsel to file the instant application for claimed benefits under the workmen's compensation law, 'requesting apportionment of the costs of the third party recovery week by week against the employer.' The opinion of the appeal board, on review of denial by the referee of the plaintiff's application, proceeded to affirmance this way:
'After the third-party settlement, plaintiff remained totally disabled until the date of his death on 8--21--66, of causes unrelated to his personal injury of 2--13--59.
'Upon plaintiff's death, his widow filed a petition for hearing which the referee denied and credited defendant for compensation voluntarily paid.'
Then, having quoted portions of section 15 with emphasis of the sentence:
'The expenses of recovery above mentioned shall be apportioned by the court between the parties as their interests appear at the time of said recovery.'; the board went on to rule, in praiseworthy compendium:
'This Board not being the 'Court' mentioned in the Statute does not have the power to 'apportion' the 'expenses of recovery."
May 14, 1969 the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, ruling 'lack of merit in the grounds presented.' This Court, being informed of the upcoming pendency of the Mead Case, supra granted leave to review July 15, 1969 (382 Mich. 769).
No question of Mrs. Modeen's right if any to dependency benefits, under the workmen's compensation law, is involved. Today's issue is sharp; whether in the light of the arms-length settlement agreed to under the statute, both by the employee and his widow with the assistance of able counsel, the department is vested with jurisdiction to provide for the plaintiff widow more 'apportionment' than she and her husband obtained when they signed off in May of 1961. To provide due understanding of the contention we quote plaintiff's counsel directly:
(Emphasis supplied by counsel.)
Then, having referred to the appeal board's presently quoted opinion and to said section 16, counsel proceed:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Banoski v. Motor Crane Service, Inc.
...105, 159 N.W.2d 839; Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Quimby (1968), 381 Mich. 149, 160 N.W.2d 865.In Modeen v. Consumers Power Company (1971), 384 Mich. 354, 184 N.W.2d 197, the Michigan Supreme Court held that where an injured employee and his employer agree upon a settlement with a t......
-
Solakis v. Roberts
...this Court has often stated that WCAB is not a 'court' and 'is not possessed of judicial power.' Modeen v. Consumers Power Co., 384 Mich. 354, 360, 184 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1971). In summary, the unilateral action of WCAB in Maxwell attempting to apply the interest rate of 6% Found in M.C.L.A. ......
-
Lulgjuraj v. Chrysler Corp.
...determination of rights arising out of an entirely different relationship than that of employer-employee. Modeen v. Consumers Power Co., 384 Mich. 354, 360-361, 184 N.W.2d 197 (1971); Bonney v. Citizens' Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 333 Mich. 435, 440, 53 N.W.2d 321 (1952). However where the......
-
Neal v. Roura Iron Works, Inc.
...relationship is unrelated to the cause of action.' (Emphasis added.) Similarly, the Supreme Court, in Modeen v. Consumers Power Co., 384 Mich. 354, 360--361, 184 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1971), quoted the following language with 'The statutory grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the workmen's compen......