Case Name: ARDELIAN v. FORD MOTOR CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1935-06-03
Citations: 272 Mich. 117
Docket Number: Docket No. 20, Calendar No. 38,225
Parties: ARDELIAN v. FORD MOTOR CO.
Judges: Nelson Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, Butzel and Bushnell, JJ., concurred with Edward M. Sharpe, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 272
Pages: 117–122

Head Matter:
ARDELIAN v. FORD MOTOR CO.
1. Workmen’s Compensation — General Statute op Limitations.
General statute of limitations does not apply to proceeding brought under the -workmen’s compensation aet before department of labor and industry since it is not a- court and proceeding before it is not an action (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13976).
2. Same — Eye Injury — Proceeding to be Commenced Within Reasonable Time.
Award for loss of sight of right eye, on petition filed over 10 years after injury held, barred for failure to commence proceeding in a reasonable time, notwithstanding employee remained employed by same employer which never notified department of labor and industry of the injury or demand for compensation.
3. Same — -Awards—Enforcement in Court — General Statute op Limitations.
Proceedings in court to enforce awards of the department of labor and industry would be barred by general statute of limi tations where all compensation to which plaintiff might have been entitled had become due and payable more than six years before action was taken for its recovery (Comp. Laws 1929, §§8452, 13976).
Potter, C. ¿T., dissenting.
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Submitted April 2, 1935.
(Docket No. 20, Calendar No. 38,225.)
Decided June 3, 1935.
Rehearing denied October 30, 1935.
Ceorge Ardelian presented his claim' against the Ford Motor Company for an accidental injury alleged to have been sustained while in defendant’s employ. Award to plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Gloster, Giller & Briggs, for plaintiff.
E. C. Starkey and Frank A. Nolan, for defendant.

Opinion:
Edward M. Sharpe, J.
I am not in accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice Potter. This case is ruled by Hajduk v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., 268 Mich. 220. Both cases involved an eye injury; each employer was notified of the injury through his agent and employee; each of the injured employees continued in the employ of his employer after the injury; and in each case the employer failed to notify the department of labor and industry of the injury or demand for compensation; and further, no action was taken to gain compensation until more than 10 years after the date of the injury.
"We said in Hajduk v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., supra,
"While the general statute of limitations has no. application in the instant case because the depart ment of labor and industry is not a court and a proceeding before it is not an action, yét we can conceive of no reason why there should not be a limit of time within which a proceeding for compensation should be commenced. That limit of time must be a reasonable one, which by analogy to the statute of limitations will be deemed to be six years. Cruse v. Railvay Co., 138 Kan. 117 (23 Pac. [2d] 471)."
Moreover, awards of the department of labor and industry can only be enforced by proceedings in a proper court and the general statute of limitations would be a bar to such proceedings as in the case at bar where all the weekly compensation to which plaintiff might have been entitled had become due and payable more than six years before action was taken for its recovery. See Gallup v. Western Board & Paper Co., 252 Mich. 68.
The award is vacated, with costs to defendant.
Nelson Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, Butzel and Bushnell, JJ., concurred with Edward M. Sharpe, J.
See 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 13976.—Reporter.
See 2 Oomp. Laws 1929, § 8452.—Reporter.