Meyers v. Chris-Craft Corporation

3 Citing cases

  1. Nicholson v. Lansing Board of Education

    423 Mich. 89 (Mich. 1985)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that in workers' compensation cases, the statutory provision in effect at the time of the injury governs "unless the Legislature clearly indicates a contrary intention"

    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.

  2. Norris v. Chrysler Corp.

    391 Mich. 469 (Mich. 1974)   Cited 21 times
    In Norris, the claimant was injured on November 2, 1954, when he was struck by a car while en route from a parking lot to his workplace.

    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.

  3. Hawley v. General Motors Corp.

    67 Mich. App. 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    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.