Legal Opinion · Dissent
Barclay v. General Motors Corp.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 11, 1944No. Docket No. 24, Calendar No. 42,596PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Dissent
The sole question presented in this appeal, in the nature of certiorari from the department of labor and industry, is stated by plaintiff and appellant James Barclay as follows:
"Is the recent aggravation of a pre-existing nondisabling hernia, which aggravation causes total disability, compensable under the workmen's compensation law?"
Appellee and defendant Pontiac Motor Division, General Motors Corporation, prefers to state the question in this manner:
"Was plaintiff's hernia clearly recent in origin so as to be covered under paragraph 28 of section 2, part 7 of the workmen's compensation law?"
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Robbins v. Original Gas Engine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Kutschmar v. Briggs Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
- McCarthy v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Paridee v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
- Riley v. Berry Bros. Paint Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kasarewski v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Amamotto v. J. Kozloff Fish Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1947
- Hargrove v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1945
- McHan v. Bohn Aluminum & Brass Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Moses v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.