Court Opinion

ID: 9670121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:15:09.041134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:02.697539
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, J.
(concurring). I agree with Justice Kelly that a very incomplete, inconclusive and unsatisfactory record is submitted in this case, both *43in regard to the proof of injury and the question of whether defendant received notices of hearings. The record justifies a finding by this Court that the ease be remanded to the workmen’s compensation appeal board for a hearing to determine by competent proof whether notices of hearings were actually given to defendant.
The appeal board has not passed upon the merits of this case. Its opinion contains the following statement:
“This board, being fully advised in the premises and finding that it has no power or authority to grant a rehearing and further finding that the requests and petitions of defendant to such extent as they constitute petitions for delayed appeal should be denied.”
As authority for this position the appeal board relies upon the following statement of this Court in Dodge v. General Motors Corp., 316 Mich 425, 430:
“Sufficient cause for delayed appeal was not shown. The appeal was too late. The commission had no jurisdiction to hear it.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The question before the Court in the Dodge Case was whether or not the commission’s 1 order granting a delayed appeal amounted to an abuse of discretion. The Court found that, under the facts and circumstances in the case, the appeal board’s action did constitute an abuse of discretion. The decision did not intend to limit the statutory jurisdiction imposed on the appeal board by CL 1948, § 413.8 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.182). 2
*44In the' case before us, the record justifies a finding by this Court that the case be remanded to the appeal board for a hearing to determine by competent proof whether notices of hearings were actually given to defendant.
If, on such proof, it is determined defendant had proper notice, then the appeal board will affirm the present award, since the failure of defendant to present its defenses after proper notice would bar its presentation at this time.
On determining that no proper notice was, given defendant, a new hearing, after proper notice, shall be conducted by the appeal board.
Costs shall abide the final result.
Carr, C. J., and Dethmers, Kelly, Black, Souris, and Otis M. Smith, JJ., concurred with Kavanagh, J.
Adams, J., did not sit.

 The powers and duties of the workmen’s compensation commission, here referred to, have been transferred to the workmen’s compensation appeal board and the commission abolished. See PA 1955, No 62 (OLS 1956, §§ 408.9, 408.32, Stat Ann 1960 Rev §§ 17.6[15], 17.6 [ 32]). — Reporter.

 CL 1948, § 413.8 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.182), reads as follows: “Sec. 8. The member or deputy member of the commission assigned *44to any hearing in accordance with the provisions of section 7 shall make such inquiries and investigations as it shall deem necessary. The hearings of the member or deputy member of the commission shall be held at the locality where the injury occurred, and the decision of the member or deputy member of the commission shall be filed, with the compensation commission. Unless a claim for a review is filed by either party within 10 days, the decision shall stand as the decision of the compensation commission: Provided, That said commission may, for sufficient .cause shown, grant further time in which to claim such review.”