Morgan v. Freedman Artcraft, 59363
| Decision Date | 29 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 59363,59363 |
| Citation | 401 Mich. 54,257 N.W.2d 85 |
| Parties | Edward J. MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FREEDMAN ARTCRAFT and American Mutual Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
McCroskey, Libner, Van Leuven, Kortering, Cochrane & Brock by Robert O. Chessman, Muskegon, for plaintiff-appellant.
Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan by Sherman H. Cone, Grand Rapids, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff was injured in an accident involving a forklift truck on June 16, 1970. He sought worker's disability benefits and a referee, on November 11, 1971, awarded benefits which ended on June 7, 1971. A new petition for benefits was filed by plaintiff on September 28, 1972. A new hearing was conducted, and the referee, on June 22, 1973, awarded further benefits for the period of June 8, 1971 through September 18, 1972.
Counsel for the defense sought a review of the referee's June 22, 1973, award. The workmen's compensation appeal board (WCAB) reversed that award on the basis of an application of the principle of res judicata. In the WCAB opinion it was said:
We disagree with the WCAB's application of res judicata in this case. We perceive the issue at the second hearing before the referee to have been twofold: whether claimant was disabled, and the significance and effect of plaintiff's declining of an apparent offer of favored work. The evidence available to the referee prior to his first decision was incomplete on these issues. Evidence at the second hearing, considered on its merits, led the referee to conclude that claimant should receive a second award.
In lieu of leave to appeal, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), we reverse the Court of Appeals decision of January 18, 1977, and remand the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gose v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., Docket Nos. 60752
...v. Wolverine Bolt Co., 393 Mich. 368, 224 N.W.2d 856 (1975), in which res judicata was found to control, and Morgan v. Freedman Artcraft, 401 Mich. 54, 257 N.W.2d 85 (1977), in which it was In Gose, the issue is whether a claim based on insanity which was withdrawn before adjudication can b......
-
Askew v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, Docket No. 78996
...order date)." White II, 352 Mich. at 210-211, 89 N.W.2d 439. Indistinguishable facts were also presented in Morgan v. Freedman Artcraft, 401 Mich. 54, 257 N.W.2d 85 (1977), in which a unanimous Court, following White II, held that res judicata did not preclude a subsequent The subsequent tr......
-
Page v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., Docket No. 78-1940
...the application of res judicata principles to the present case was premature at best. See generally, Morgan v. Freedman Artcraft, 401 Mich. 54, 257 N.W.2d 85 (1977), and Sanders v. General Motors Corp., 80 Mich.App. 190, 263 N.W.2d 329 (1977), Lv. gtd. 402 Mich. 950i (1978). Accordingly, th......
-
Sanders v. General Motors Corp., Oldsmobile Division
...v. Wolverine Bolt Co., 393 Mich. 368, 224 N.W.2d 856 (1975). But Hlady, the present case, and the just released Morgan v. Freedman Artcraft, 401 Mich. 54, 257 N.W.2d 85 (1977), amply demonstrate that application of the doctrine in this context is extremely difficult. Assuming, arguendo, tha......