Pigue v. Gen. Motors Corp.
Decision Date | 08 April 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 47.,47. |
Citation | 26 N.W.2d 900,317 Mich. 311 |
Parties | PIGUE v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, OLDSMOBILE DIVISION. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Dwayne L. Pigue, claimant, opposed by General Motors Corporation, Oldsmobile division, employer. From an award of the Department of Labor and Industry granting claimant total disability compensation, employer prosecutes an appeal in the nature of certiorari.
Award vacated.
Before the Entire Bench, except BUTZEL, J.
Henry M. Hogan, of Detroit (G. W. Gloster, E. H. Reynolds, and R. V. Hackett, all of Detroit, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Raymond H. Rapaport, of Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee.
Leave having been granted, defendant appeals from an award of the department of labor and industry entered July 10, 1946, granting plaintiff compensation at the rate of $21 per week for total disability from November 21, 1945, to March 14, 1946.
Plaintiff was injured on June 29, 1944, while in the employ of defendant company as a machine repair helper. He fell from a scaffold, striking his shoulder and the back of his head and injuring his chest. Following the injury plaintiff was paid compensation from July 13, 1944, to August 26, 1944, and from February 5, 1945, to March 24, 1945.
After his injury, plaintiff was given a job by defendant doing clerical work. It has been stipulated that on March 14, 1946, plaintiff returned to clerical work of the same character which he was doing up to the time of the strike with wages at the rate of $1,325 per hour; that on March 19, 1946, his rate was increased to $1.375 per hour; and that plaintiff is still employed by defendant company at this rate of pay.
In appealing, defendant urges that there is no competent evidence that plaintiff's disability is the result of the injury. Plaintiff testified that he was first employed by defendant corporation June 10, 1936, was given a physical examination, including X-rays; that from the time he was first employed until the date of the accident, he did heavy work and lost no time because of sickness or ill health; and that while his shoulder condition has healed satisfactorily, nevertheless, he suffers severe pains in his chest which come on with any appreciable amount of exertion.
Dr. Cyrus B. Gardner, a witness produced by plaintiff, testified as follows:
In compensation cases we review the record to determine if there is competent evidence to support the finding of facts, see Putnam v. Beechler, 299 Mich. 552, 300 N.W. 880.
In our opinion there is competent testimony to sustain the finding of fact that plaintiff was totally disabled from doing the work he had been doing at the date of the injury of June 29, 1944.
The pivotal question in this case relates to plaintiff's right to compensation during the period of a strike called by a union of which he is a member. The department of labor and industry awarded plaintiff compensation during this period, stating:
In coming to our conclusions on this question we take into consideration that plaintiff was given light employment at wages equal to or greater than he received at the time of his accidental injury; that he was a member of the union that called a strike on November 21, 1945; and that but for this strike plaintiff would have remained in the employ of defendant company with no lessening of wages.
The principle upon which compensation is awarded is, that the employee has suffered a loss in his wage earning capacity as a result of a compensable injury suffered while in the employ of his employer.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sington v. Chrysler Corporation
...(1979)(holding that disability is the inability to perform work the claimant was doing when injured), and Pigue v. General Motors Corp., 317 Mich. 311, 315, 26 N.W.2d 900 (1947)(finding total disability where an employee was unable to do the same work after the MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J. (conc......
-
Nederhood v. Cadillac Malleable Iron Co.
...Co., 412 Mich. 172, 312 N.W.2d 640 (1981), we utilized a case that supports this rule, and our decision in Pigue v. General Motors Corp., 317 Mich. 311, 26 N.W.2d 900 (1947), seems also to imply a suspension of benefits instead of a permanent The Bower Court's citation, with apparent approv......
-
Sobotka v. Chrysler Corp.
...amount could not have exceeded the former wage when added to residual earning capacity. 13 We repeated in Pigue v. General Motors Corp., 317 Mich. 311, 316-317, 26 N.W.2d 900 (1947), that to limit earning capacity to wages actually earned would encourage malingering, and we stated again tha......
-
Haske v. Transport Leasing, Inc., Indiana
...463, 381 N.W.2d 386 (1985); Kidd v. General Motors Corp., 414 Mich. 578, 591-592, 327 N.W.2d 265 (1982); Pigue v. General Motors Corp., 317 Mich. 311, 316, 26 N.W.2d 900 (1947). Further, it is unclear what effect the three-part test has on the majority holding that a disability is a work-re......