Pritchard v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1936
• Docket Number: No. 41.,41.
• Citation: Pritchard v. Ford Motor Co., 276 Mich. 246, 267 N.W. 622 (Mich. 1936)
• Parties: PRITCHARD v. FORD MOTOR CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

276 Mich. 246

267 N.W. 622

PRITCHARD

v.FORD MOTOR CO.

No. 41.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 16, 1936.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John Pritchard, claimant, opposed by the Ford Motor Company, employer.To review an award of compensation by the Department of Labor and Industry, the employer brings an appeal in the nature of certiorari.

Award affirmed as modified, and case remanded for modification of award.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

E. C. Starkey and F. A. Nolan, both of Dearborn, for appellant.

Cecil W. Castor, of Ferndale (Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

NORTH, Chief Justice.

On September 3, 1930, while in defendant's employ, plaintiff suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.He asserts that he made claim for compensation.In January, 1935, he applied to the Department of Labor and Industry for adjustment of his claim for compensation.On hearing before the deputy commissioner, an award of compensation for partial disability was made; and on review by the board the award was modified and affirmed.Defendant reviews by certiorari.

Plaintiff's injury was a right inguinal hernia.It was promptly called to defendant's attention.Defendant at once offered to provide an operation, but plaintiff at the time refused.He subsequently (August 5, 1932) requested the operation.At that time plaintiff was not in defendant's employ and the latter did not provide the operation.On the occasion of the accident plaintiff did not lose any time; and defendant on October 21, 1930, reported the accident as noncompensable.Plaintiff continued in defendant's employ until he was laid off September 29, 1931.Appellant asserts the Industrial Accident Board erred in holding: (1) That the filing of a noncompensable report was not a proper report; (2) that this application for compensation was not barred by section 8431,2 Comp.Laws 1929; and (3) that plaintiff made a proper demand for compensation.

As to defendant having filed a report of noncompensable accident, the Industrial Accident Board in effect held that plaintiff's accident was compensable and that filing a report of a noncompensable accident constituted a failure to perform the employer's statutory duty relative to reporting to the Department of Labor and Industry and deprived defendant of the defense of the statutory limitation.2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 8431.Under the circumstances of this case the holding was correct.The employer, through its proper agents and employees, had knowledge that as the result of the accident plaintiff sustained a right inguinal hernia, that his condition required an operation and hospitalization, and entitled him to compensation during recovery.With such knowledge the employer was bound to file a report of a compensable injury.The statute provides: ‘that in all cases in which the employer has been given notice of the happening of the accident, or has notice or knowledge of the happening of said accident, within three (3) months after the happening of the same, and fails, neglects or refuses to report said accident to the industrial accident board as required by the provisions of this act, the statute of limitations shall not run against the claim of the injured employe or his dependents, or in favor of either said employer or his insurer, until a report of said accident shall have been filed with the industrial accident board.’Section 8431,2 Comp.Laws 1929.Filing a report of a noncompensable accident by an employer having full knowledge of the fact that it was a compensable accident, not a noncompensable one, is a failure to...