Case Name: SEDLOW v. PEOPLES WAYNE COUNTY BANK
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1936-01-07
Citations: 274 Mich. 325
Docket Number: Docket No. 103, Calendar No. 38,074
Parties: SEDLOW v. PEOPLES WAYNE COUNTY BANK.
Judges: Butzel, Bushnell, and Toy, JJ., concurred with North, C. J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 325–331

Head Matter:
SEDLOW v. PEOPLES WAYNE COUNTY BANK.
1. Workmen’s Compensation — Department of Labor and Industry — Certiorari.
While department of labor and industry, in passing upon petitions for compensation, acts in a gwosi-judicial capacity, generally, it acts as an administrative board and its determinations are reviewable in Supreme Court only by certiorari.
2. Same — Certiorari—Abuse of Discretion.
Only an abuse of discretion by the department of labor and industry in the exercise of its discretionary power will justify modification or setting aside its determination on review thereof by certiorari.
3. Same — Action of Deputy Commissioner — Extension of Time for Beview — Discretion of Department.
The department of labor and industry may, for sufficient cause shown, extend the time within which a party may review the determination of a deputy commissioner and, in so doing, exercises a discretionary power with which the Supreme Court generally declines to interfere (2 Comp. Laws 1929, §8447).
4. Same — Abuse of Discretion — Evidence.
Order of department of labor and industry granting an extension of time to review determination of deputy commissioner on employee’s petition for further compensation held, not an abuse of discretion on showing that employee appeared before . deputy without counsel, no testimony was taken as to his physical condition, that he did not know what his rights were and that he was misinformed as to law governing his case (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8447).
5. Same — Partial Disability — Janitor—Evidence — Cross-Examination.
Award of partial disability to janitor, injured from fall from step-ladder, on his petition for further compensation held, sustained by testimony although some of it was testimony by physicians who examined him after hearing before deputy, but referred to his condition as of that time, and full opportunity for cross-examination was afforded.
6. Same — Partial Disability — Adequacy oe Award.
Adequacy of award for partial disability cannot be reviewed on certiorari where testimony was in decided conflict.
Wiest, Edward M. Sharpe, and Potter, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Submitted October 16, 1935.
(Docket No. 103, Calendar No. 38,074.)
Decided January 7, 1936.
Daniel Sedlow presented Ms claim against Peoples Wayne County Bank, employer, and General Accident Assurance Corporation, insurer, for compensation for accidental injury sustained while in defendant’s employ. On petition for further compensation. Petition denied. On petitions for extension of time for appeal and to take further testimony. Petitions granted. Award to plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Casper C. Cutler (Floyd T. Schermerhorn, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, for defendants.

Opinion:
North, C. J.
In passing upon petitions for compensation the commissioners of the department of labor and industry act in a g"wasi-judicial capacity; but in general they act as an administrative board. Their determinations .are reviewable in this court only by certiorari. When they exercise a discretionary power nothing short of a showing of an abuse of discretion will justify this court in setting aside or modifying their determination. By statute (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8447) the department of labor and industry may, for sufficient cause shown, extend the time within which a party may review the determination of a deputy commissioner. When a showing is made upon an application for such an extension of time, granting or denying the application is, at least in a very large measure, a matter of discretion. Brunette v. Quincy Mining Co., 197 Mich. 301 (16 N. C. C. A. 743). We have repeatedly declined to interfere with discretionary orders of the department of labor and industry made in administering this phase of the workmen's compensation act. Among such cases the following may be noted: Collins v. Albert A. Albrecht Co., 207 Mich. 627; Hosner v. Village of Romeo, 229 Mich. 654; Suggs v. Ternstedt Manfg. Co., 232 Mich. 599. As stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Edward M. Sharpe, plaintiff made a showing on the basis of which the commission granted an extension of time. The showing was such that it seems to me it cannot be held the commission abused its discretion in granting the extension of time; and therefore the award of the commission should not, for that reason, be vacated.
Nor do I think the award should be disturbed, as claimed by appellants, because the department permitted the taking of the additional testimony of certain physicians who examined plaintiff subsequent to the hearing before the deputy commissioner. Especially is this, true since the testimony given v by these witnesses,, while based upon their subsequent examinations, referred to plaintiff's condition at or prior to the time of the hearing before the deputy; and further, full opportunity for cross-examination was afforded.
There is testimony in the record to sustain the department's determination of plaintiff's partial disability. Tbe extent of such partial disability was a question of fact which had to be determined from the testimony in which there was a decided conflict. Plaintiff's claim on this appeal, that the award of $4 per week is inadequate, cannot be reviewed on certiorari. The award for partial disability is affirmed, with costs to appellee.
Butzel, Bushnell, and Toy, JJ., concurred with North, C. J.