Veek v. Wesley Freight Co.

9 Citing cases

  1. Hopson v. Chrysler Corp.

    60 Mich. App. 14 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)

    "In conclusion, the proofs in this case are not of the degree that would allow us to affirm the referee; therefore, the prior decision is reversed; the burden of proof was unmet. See Pucilowski v Packard Motor Car Co, 278 Mich. 240; 270 N.W. 282 (1936) and Veek v Wesley Freight Co, 306 Mich. 485; 11 N.W.2d 213 (1943)."

  2. Zytkewick v. Ford Motor Co.

    340 Mich. 309 (Mich. 1954)   Cited 3 times

    The law applicable to the facts in this case is well stated in Wiltse v. Borden's Farm Products Company, 328 Mich. 257, where we again quoted and approved of the following (p 265): "`(1) The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right. Pucilowski v. Packard Motor Car Co., 278 Mich. 240; Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. (2) In awarding compensation to a plaintiff, the department may not indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich. 130, 137; Marman v. Detroit Edison Co., 268 Mich. 166. (3) Workmen's compensation provided by the act is not intended to be either sickness, health, or life insurance or to provide benefits for employees suffering from ordinary diseases of life.' (Citing numerous cases.)

  3. Kroon v. Kalamazoo County Rd. Comm

    339 Mich. 1 (Mich. 1954)   Cited 5 times

    In deciding such controversies it seems imperative that 3 principles be kept in mind. (1) The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right. Pucilowski v. Packard Motor Car Co., 278 Mich. 240; Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. (2) In awarding compensation to a plaintiff, the department may not indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation.

  4. Ash v. Great Lakes Greyhound Lines

    60 N.W.2d 166 (Mich. 1953)   Cited 5 times

    In deciding such controversies it seems imperative that 3 principles be kept in mind. (1) The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right. Pucilowski v. Packard Motor Car Co., 278 Mich. 240; Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. (2) In awarding compensation to a plaintiff, the department may not indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich. 130, 137; Marman v. Detroit Edison Co., 268 Mich. 166. (3) Workmen's compensation provided by the act is not intended to be either sickness, health, or life insurance or to provide benefits for employees suffering from ordinary diseases of life.

  5. Nightlinger v. Giant Super Market

    53 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. 1952)   Cited 3 times

    " The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right, see Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. In awarding compensation the commission may not indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation, see Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich. 130, but the commission may draw reasonable inferences from established facts; see Standard Drug Store v. A.E. Wood Co., 227 Mich. 333.

  6. Wiltse v. Borden's Farm Products Co.

    43 N.W.2d 842 (Mich. 1950)   Cited 4 times

    We note only the following: "(1) The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right. Pucilowski v. Packard Motor Car Co., 278 Mich. 240; Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. (2) In awarding compensation to a plaintiff, the department may not indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich. 130, 137; Marman v. Detroit Edison Co., 268 Mich. 166. (3) Workmen's compensation provided by the act is not intended to be either sickness, health, or life insurance or to provide benefits for employees suffering from ordinary diseases of life. (Citing numerous cases.)

  7. Fowler v. Moving Storage Co.

    37 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1949)   Cited 4 times

    Defendants were entitled to its benefits. Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. The case should be remanded to the department of labor and industry with directions to set aside the award and to permit defendants to introduce the testimony in question, with costs of this appeal to defendants.

  8. Cromie v. Florez, Incorporated

    27 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 1947)   Cited 4 times

    "In deciding such controversies it seems imperative that three principles be kept in mind. (1) The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right. Pucilowski v. Packard Motor Car Co., 278 Mich. 240; Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. (2) In awarding compensation to a plaintiff, the department may not indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich. 130, 137; Marman v. Detroit Edison Co., 268 Mich. 166. (3) Workmen's compensation provided by the act is not intended to be either sickness, health, or life insurance or to provide benefits for employees suffering from ordinary diseases of life. Rector v. Ragnar-Benson, Inc., 313 Mich. 277; Act No. 10, pt. 7, § 1, Pub. Acts 1912 (1st Ex. Sess.), as added by Act No. 61, Pub. Acts 1937, and amended by Act No. 245, Pub. Acts 1943 (Comp.

  9. Riley v. Kohlenberg

    25 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. 1946)   Cited 14 times

    In deciding such controversies it seems imperative that three principles be kept in mind. (1) The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right. Pucilowski v. Packard Motor Car Co., 278 Mich. 240; Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich. 485. (2) In awarding compensation to a plaintiff, the department may not indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich. 130, 137; Marman v. Detroit Edison Co., 268 Mich. 166. (3) Workmen's compensation provided by the act is not intended to be either sickness, health, or life insurance or to provide benefits for employees suffering from ordinary diseases of life. Rector v. Ragnar-Benson, Inc., 313 Mich. 277; Act No. 10, pt. 7, § 1, Pub. Acts 1912 (1st Ex. Sess.), as added by Act No. 61, Pub. Acts 1937, and amended by Act No. 245, Pub. Acts 1943 (Comp.