A finger was amputated in April 1958. Although the only notice given was the complaint to the foreman, the Court affirmed an award for the loss of the finger. Sufficient notice was also found in Meyers v Chris-Craft Corp, 379 Mich. 552; 153 N.W.2d 657 (1967). The employee's wife went to the personnel manager and said her husband had been injured at work.
Although the only notice given was the complaint to the foreman, the Court affirmed an award for the loss of the finger. Sufficient notice was also found in Meyers v Chris-Craft Corp, 379 Mich. 552; 153 N.W.2d 657 (1967). The employee's wife went to the personnel manager and said her husband had been injured at work.
While the admissibility of evidence is not determined with reference to the standards applicable in trial courts, hearsay has been usually held inadmissible in compensation proceedings. See e.g. Reck v Whittlesberger, 181 Mich. 463; 148 N.W. 247 (1914), Ginsberg v Burroughs Adding Machine Co, 204 Mich. 130; 170 N.W. 15 (1918), Kadykowski v Briggs Manufacturing Co, 304 Mich. 503; 8 N.W.2d 154 (1943), and Meyers v Chris-Craft Corp, 379 Mich. 552; 153 N.W.2d 657 (1967). Although hearsay evidence is considered inadmissible, under the so-called "legal residuum" rule, the use of such evidence will generally not require reversal.