Court Opinion

ID: 9684934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:18:59.472647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:01.186166
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, J.
(dissenting). I do not favor acceptance of plaintiff’s invitation to overrule Hajduk v. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., 268 Mich 220, and Ardelian v. Ford Motor Co., 272 Mich 117. The *551holding in those eases was that by analogy to the general statute of limitations, six years must be deemed to be the limit of time and a reasonable one within which a proceeding for compensation should be commenced under the workmen’s compensation act; and, further, that the running of that period is not tolled by the employer’s failure to file a report of accident as provided by that act in CL 1929, § 8431,* because that tolling applies only to the six-month limitation provided in that same section.
Thirty-two years have passed since the decision in jEajduk was announced by this Court, followed the next year in Ardelicm. The act has been before the legislature and amended many times during that period. No amendment has been added to change the rule of Majdult and Ardelian. The conclusion must be one of legislative acquiescence in the statutory interpretation of those two cases. For us now to change the law by overruling them would amount to legislation by judicial fiat. Accordingly, I concur with Mr. Justice Black in affirmance.
Kelly, J., concurred with Dethmers, J.

 CLS 1961, § 412.15 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.165). See, currently, as amended by PA 1965, No 44 (Stat Ann 1965 Cum Supp § 17.165).