Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kosiel v. Arrow Liquors Corp.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 1994No. 96356, (Calendar No. 7)Published

1DissentRiley, J.

I respectfully dissent for the reason that I interpret the intent behind the res judicata rule, as it applies to worker’s disability benefits awards, to focus on changes in condition rather than changes in circumstance. Changes in circumstance are typically the manifestation of a change in condition, and where that is the case, the modification of an award may be in order. However, we are also faced with a problem concerning the finality of disability awards. To respect the need for finality, and in keeping with precedent concerning the modification of disability awards generally, I would…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gose v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Hlady v. Wolverine Bolt Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Gursten v. KenneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Hackley v. HackleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  5. White v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1958

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API