Case Name: RAYKOV v. CRITTALL CASEMENT WINDOW CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1931-12-08
Citations: 256 Mich. 28
Docket Number: Docket No. 68, Calendar No. 35,620
Parties: RAYKOV v. CRITTALL CASEMENT WINDOW CO.
Judges: Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 28–30

Head Matter:
RAYKOV v. CRITTALL CASEMENT WINDOW CO.
1. Master and Servant — 'Workmen’s Compensation Act — Finding of Department Supported by Evidence Conclusive.
Finding of department of labor and industry orf disputed question as to whether disability for which original award of compensation was made still continues is conclusive, where sustained by evidence.
2. Same — Question Not Raised Before Department Not Considered on Appeal — Department’s Rules.
Question as to compliance with department’s Rule No. 20, raised at hearing before deputy, but not raised at hearing before department on appeal, is not considered by Supreme Court.
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Submitted October 9, 1931.
(Docket No. 68, Calendar No. 35,620.)
Decided December 8, 1931.
Joseph Baykov presented his claim against Crittall Casement Window Company, employer, and Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, insurer, for an accidental injury while in defendant’s employ. Petition to stop compensation denied. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
J. W. Calnon (Denton Jolly, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, for defendants.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
This is appeal from an order of the department of labor and industry denying petition of defendants to stop compensation.
The testimony of plaintiff and of his physician is to the effect that the disability for which the original award of compensation was made still continues. This testimony is disputed.
The finding of fact by,- the department, having some evidence to sustain it, is conclusive on this court.
At the hearing before the deputy commissioner, defendants raised the point that plaintiff had not answered their petition to stop compensation, and cited Buie No. 20 of the rules of the department. The record does not show this question to .have been urged before the commission on review. Therefore it will not be considered here. Aske v. W. E. Wood Co., 248 Mich. 327.
Affirmed.
Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.