Gulec v. Chrysler Corp.

On rehearing we find no reason for changing our former opinion. Gulec v. Chrysler Corp., ante, 159.

The contention that our former opinion conflicts with the opinions in Casey v. Railroad Co., 290 Mich. 601, and Hayward v. Kalamazoo Stove Co., 290 Mich. 610, is unfounded. In those cases, as well as in the case at bar, we found the awards of the department supported by evidence and, under the well-established rule in such instances, we affirmed the awards.

As said in the Hayward Case:

"It is the adjudication of the department, and not plaintiff's testimony, which controls."

The first denial of an…