Panozzo v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | June Term, 1931.,No. 19,19 |
| Citation | 237 N.W. 369,255 Mich. 149 |
| Parties | PANOZZO v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Gogebic County, in Chancery; George O. Driscoll, Judge.
Bill by Louis Panozzo against the Ford Motor Company, a foreign corporation. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed, with directions.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Edgar J. Matz, of Dearborn, for appellant.
Baird & Rummel, of Ironwood, and Ray Derham, of Iron Mountain, for appellee.
Plaintiff was injured while in the defendant's employ by falling from a box car across the rails of a railroad track. He was awarded compensation at the rate of $14 a week. Subsequently defendant's compensation manager made an agreement with plaintiff to pay him a lump sum in full settlement, based upon the allowance of compensation for the statutory period at $3.45 a week. Plaintiff signed at one time the settlement, petition for its approval, and final settlement receipt. The settlement was approved by the department of labor and industry. The lump sum was paid to plaintiff and his final receipt therefor filed and approved by the department. Plaintiff subsequently filed an application for further compensation, which application was denied because of a final settlement made, carried out, and approved. Plaintiff then filed the bill of complaint herein to set aside the settlement, award, and final receipt on the ground they were procured from him by and through the fraud of defendant's agent. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
The department of labor and industry has no power to grant a rehearing of its determinations. Martilla v. Quincy Mining Co., 221 Mich. 525, 191 N. W. 193, 30 A. L. R. 1249. But this does not prevent it, in case there has been a change in the injured person's condition due to the accident, from rehearing and redetermining the matter, based upon the conditions before it due to such changed condition. Richards v. Rogers Boiler & Burner Co., 252 Mich. 52, 234 N. W. 428.
A court of equity may relieve against a settlement, petition to the board for its approval, award based thereon, and a final settlement receipt procured by fraud. Smith v. Port Huron Gas & Elec. Co., 217 Mich. 519, 187 N. W. 292;Smith v. Port Huron Gas & Elec. Co., 222 Mich. 350, 192 N. W. 588;American Life Ins. Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich. 580, 214 N. W. 208; Luyk v. Hertel, 242 Mich. 445, 219 N. W. 721;Richards v. Rogers Boiler & Burner Co., 252 Mich. 52, 234 N. W. 428. It is claimed plaintiff could not read or write English and understood this language imperfectly. Settlement was solicited by defendant's agent who went to Iron Mountain to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
...on its bargained-for rights." Tom Thomas, supra at 601, 242 N.W.2d 396. 13. 413 Mich. 22, 319 N.W.2d 320 (1982). 14. See Ford, supra at 31, 32 n. 4, 237 N.W. 369. The statutory policy provided a sixty-day period for the insured to supply proof of loss and a sixty-day period following proof ......
-
Solo v. Chrysler Corp.
...and an award made and accepted cannot be disturbed except upon a showing that it was procured by fraud. Panozzo v. Ford Motor Co. (1931), 255 Mich. 149 (237 N.W. 369); Catina v. Hudson Motor Car Co. (1935), 272 Mich. 377 (262 N.W. We find that this rule describes too narrowly the available ......
-
Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Pneff
...v. Quincy Mining Co., 221 Mich. 525, 191 N. W. 193, 30 A. L. R. 1249;Luyk v. Hertel, 242 Mich. 445, 219 N. W. 721;Panozzo v. Ford Motor Company, 255 Mich. 149, 237 N. W. 369. The doctrine of res adjudicata is applicable to awards made by the Department of Labor and Industry. American Life I......
-
Mich. Mut. Liab. Co. v. Baker
...Law. Atherton v. Fawcett, Mich., 293 N.W. 708;Spigarelli v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 276 Mich. 46, 267 N.W. 783;Panozzo v. Ford Motor Co., 255 Mich. 149, 237 N.W. 369;Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Pneff, 262 Mich. 116, 247 N.W. 126;Kallas v. Ann Arbor City Waterworks, 272 Mich. 648, 262 N.W. 319......