*1 SOLO CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Opinion of Compensation Redemption 1. Workmen’s — Order —Final Determi- Acceptance Allegations nation — of Award — of Fraud —Ju- dicial Relief. The workmen’s rule that a order is a accepted final determination and an award made and cannot be upon showing except by disturbed that it a fraud narrowly describes too the available from final redemption order. Compensation Redemption Agreement Change 2. Workmen’s — — of Physical Equity—Equitable Relief. Condition — approved redemption agreement, approved lump An unlike an agreement, subject by reopening sum is not upon showing change workmen’s in a condition; however, physical claimant’s relief from a equity. is available in Compensation Redemption Agreement 3. Workmen’s — —Proof Improper Requirement. Fraud — improper require proof procurement It is fraud in of a compensation redemption agreement grant- workmen’s before ing any relief from such 4. Equity Compensation Equity—Redemption Order — — Jurisdiction —Meritorious Claim —False Medical Informa- tion —Reliance. exercising equity jurisdiction may A court set aside a workmen’s compensation redemption order where the claimant has a greater compensation

meritorious claim for than he re- entering redemption agreement ceived and where into the representations, though the claimant relied false even References for Points in Headnotes 2d, seq. 82 Am Jur Workmen’s 588 et [1-5] § concluded, injury, in action Matters at law to recover for the same finding compensation proceed- or decision made in workmen’s ing. 84 ALR2d 1036. faith, concerning his medical condition made in his employer’s doctor. Kelly, M.J.

Dissent *2 Redemption 5. Order —Final Determi- — Allegations Acceptance op Award — Fraud. nation — compensation redemption proceeding A order in a workmen’s is a accepted may Anal award made and determination and an not showing except upon procured by it be disturbed was fraud. O’Hair, D. J. Appeal from John Submit- Wayne, (Docket 13, 1976, ted December at Detroit. No. 25558.) 6, Rehearing granted Decided June 1977. 15, 1977. July against

Claim by Josephine Chrysler Corpo- Solo ration compensation for workmen’s benefits. The employer claim was dismissed because the liability had been and a previously redeemed previously order had been entered the work- men’s Plaintiff compensation brought bureau. an action in circuit court to set aside tion for defendant. Summary judgment Plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. Jackson,

James D. plaintiff. Dickinson, McKean, Wright, Cudlip & Moon (by Kienbaum), Thomas G. for defendant. Kelly Burns, J., T. M. P. M.

Before: Walsh, D. F. JJ. Burns, 18, 1969, P. J. February

T. M. On while employment in the course of her with the defend- ant, fell on a plaintiff slipping concrete floor after 9, 1970, in a of oil. On June to this pool into an "Agreement action entered to Redeem which, $10,500, in exchange under Liability” Opinion op the Court waived to medical benefits plaintiff any right weekly payments Compensa- under the Workmen’s Act A hearing from the accident. arising held before referee a workmen’s 15, 1970, June and a was en- tered. 1, 1971,

On filed a claim for plaintiff November benefits in the workmen’s 18, 1969, seeking February for the acci- benefits dent. The dismissed the claim with preju- referee dice, liability had finding that defendant’s been redeemed. The board affirmed. 1973, August 31, filed this

On action to set aside the order. Plaintiff 18, 1969, fall resulted in February severe back, pain shoulders and buttocks. She was examined doctors at by several defendant’s direc- tion. All diagnosed plaintiff’s the doctors medical *3 minimal, problems attempted as so pain return to work but found the unbearable. again symptoms Plaintiff was examined and her were said sprain, to be due to either a bursitis or a psychosis. Believing physical that she had no real illness, $10,500. plaintiff settled with defendant signed redemption agreement plain- After she tiff discovered that she had a herniated disc and a fractured Plaintiff’s not "in her coccyx. pain was head” but in fact was caused bone com- spurs pressing nerve roots in the spine.

Plaintiff there was a mutual mis- regarding take the nature of her due to injuries diagnoses the erroneous to which physicians sought she was sent. Plaintiff thus to have redemption being nullified as unfair upon faith based mistake on parties. both moved for granted summary

Defendant and was Mich ruled trial judgment. bu- the workmen’s issued cannot be va- determination

reau is a final jurisdiction exercising a court cated been fraudu- to have the order is shown unless appeals. Plaintiff lently procured. for the defend- judgment granting summary

In rule set out in ant, relied the trial court Airlines, v United Johnston’s Administrator (1970): 279, 285; 178 Mich NW2d and an a final determination redemption order is "A except be disturbed accepted cannot made and award by fraud. Panozzo showing that it was upon a 369]; NW Ford Motor Co. [237 (1935), 272 Mich 377 Co. Motor Car Catina v Hudson NW [262 266].” narrowly too this rule describes

We find that a final available order. unlike an agreement, approved

An is not agreement, approved lump sum compensa- the workmen’s reopening by subject change in the showing of upon a tion bureau I Stephen- Norbut v condition. physical claimant’s (1922). 345, 347; 186 NW 716 Co, son available, redemption agreement from a Relief Co, v Ford Motor Panozzo however, equity. In Panozzo 149; 237 NW settle- have a sought claimant aside, pro- it was claiming that ment order set *4 the rule The Court followed cured fraud. final such relief from a equity may grant court of fraud. receipt procured which was settlement availa- that such relief was say did not The Court cases do the fraud is shown. Nor ble when only 67 Solo v the Court Panozzo cited limit or settlement in which to actions fraud orders In Smith v Port Huron Gas & proven. Co, Electric 519; 292 (1922), Mich 187 NW 217 Balmer, American Co v Life Insurance 238 Mich 580; (1927), compared 214 NW 208 work men’s compensation awards to awards of arbitra tors, stating they were res judicata could be attacked only equity applicable where of fraud, claim or could accident mistake be made. Palmer Patron’s Mutual Fire v Insurance ofCo Michigan, (1922). 292; 217 Mich 186 511 NW In Panozzo Supreme cases decided since recognized possibility impeaching in a entered Righi Gage Co, v into by Robert Coal mistake. 269 (1934), Hughson 46; v Kalama Mich 256 617 NW zoo, 36; (1935), 271 Mich Baughman v 260 NW 111 Co, Grand Trunk W R 70; 277 268 NW 815 (1936).1 In Corp, v Avery Eddy Paper 295 Mich 277; (1940), example, NW 679 the Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court order setting aside a receipt final settlement where a doctor made mis (not fraudulent) statements necessarily to the claimant concerning the extent of his injury.

It has recognized been jurisdictions other relief from a compensation is available where shown have been by or based upon mutual mistake of a material fact. Mary- McWilliams, land v (CA Casualty Co 175 F2d 475 Case, 5, 1949), Hansen’s 178; 350 Mass 213 NE2d (1966), Morgan Duncan, 683; 361 Mo Co, Herrera v R Paving C & SW2d (1957): Compare, Utley, 332; Denton v 86 NW2d 537 injuries may justify as to mistake setting extent of his Co, aside release of tortfeasor. See Hall v Strom Construction *5 App 63

68 76 the (1963), Clark Gastonia Ice 237; P2d 339 NM 387 (1964).2 354 234; SE2d Co, 261 134 Cream NC limiting found for can be justification Little to a aside of a court to set power a can per- such rule injustice cases of fraud. The in hand, is demonstrated mit, on the other has Although at case bar. based on com- agreement

the redemption is and that she suffer- diagnoses pletely erroneous disability then serious more ing a much no believed, opportunity has had she previously require manner. To allegations any her in prove procurement of fraud in the proof granted will be is agreement any tion before Larson, in 3 well-stated argument improper. Law, 81.52: § protective function work- practical "In view of the desirability preserving compensation, men’s right too genuine mistake seems self- reopen things, argument. In the nature of there are evident for most thor- many when even the bound be occasions compen- diagnosis misses some hidden ough and skillful penalized condition. Should the claimant be sable disposition, either award or erroneous because an imperfec- settlement, only fault lies when the of medical science?” tions exercising equity jurisdic- We hold set a workmen’s may aside a meri- order where the claimant has than he greater torious claim re- entering into the received and where the claimant relied demption (even though representations made false faith) made concerning his medical condition Rand, Inc, see, Remington Lambert v 334 Ill But Co, Casualty Operators v Coal Griffin 84 So 2d NE2d (La 1955). App, M. J. Kelly, Dissent 0Alvarez v Employer’s employer’s doctor. Co, Fire Insurance (Tex SW2d App, Civ 1976).

The order of granting the trial court summary judgment for the defendant is reversed. This cause is remanded to court for the trial further proceed- ings. *6 J.,

D. F. Walsh, concurred. M. J. Kelly, (dissenting). J. parties After the to this action entered into the "Agreement to Re- deem 9, 1970, Liability” on June a hearing was 15, held on 1970, June before a referee at which testimony was taken on a record. The agreement was subject to the approval referee, of the MCLA 418.835; 17.237(835), MSA approved, and once the order of the referee became final since no review was ordered or requested within days, MCLA 17.237(837). 418.837; MSA 1, 1971, On November plaintiff filed a claim for benefits in the workmen’s compensation bureau presumably after discovering the true extent of her injuries. The referee dis- missed the claim on ground the that the injuries alleged plaintiff’s petition were redeemed the prior agreement. board affirmed. It held that the 15-day appeal period run, had that the order approving the had become final and that payment had been according made to the The appeal board concluded: "If was the victim of fraud as her remedy lies in a Court of vested with power grant the relief she seeks. prop- The referee erly dismissed application the filed with the Bureau of jurisdiction.” want of It seems me that plaintiffs complaint M. J. Dissent Kelly, negligence charges essence Plaintiffs own examining treating physicians. reservation about some attorney expressed had arranged plain- had management medical expert medical tiff to be examined seen and and of his own choos- reputation specialists incomplete or information was ing. If the medical to be a hazard of considered inaccurate it must be absolutely There is no redemption proceeding. record, the plaintiffs of the reading doubt from a no the briefs complaint I or inferable. would of fraud is made allegation relied on John- correctly hold that the trial Airlines, Administrator v United ston’s (1970), and 279, 285; properly judgment. granted summary defendant law this area were prefer I would very are often Redemption settlements otherwise. tipped against odds are gamble and if the ought there false medical information parties by remedy should my It is belief remedy. be a bu- in the workmen’s be fashioned *7 law in the courts. The administrative reau and not are better suited to and the board judges as to whether a work- conflicting out claims work worsened, hazard which disability er’s settlement, or, if the assumed inaccurate, incomplete, astray by were led Min- information. misleading or even false medical provide statutory machinery appears nesota agreement for cause. setting aside a Abate, Mattson v 279 Minn Legisla- I recommend that would statutory au- granting consider ture to set aside a thority circumstances such as those framed under

cause complaint. by plaintiffs

I affirm. would