|
No. 120768
| Joseph
A. Barnowsky, |
|
Daryl
Royal (313) 730-0055 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Workers'
Comp Appellate Com)
|
|
|
| General Motors Corporation, |
|
Martin L. Critchell (313) 961-8690 |
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on
Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Background
In December 1996, a worker's compensation magistrate found that
Joseph Barnowsky was disabled from work at General Motors, owing to
carpal tunnel and work-related mental injuries. General Motors was directed
to pay weekly benefits and to pay for necessary and reasonable medical
treatment for the physical disability. The magistrate, however, did
not mention paying for psychological treatment. General Motors appealed
the ruling as to the amount of weekly benefits that the magistrate awarded
to Barnowsky. Barnowsky cross-appealed based on the magistrate's failure
to include medical expenses for psychiatric care. The Worker's Compensation
Appellate Commission (WCAC) dismissed Barnowsky's appeal, saying that
his appeal was not timely. Barnowsky did not appeal the WCAC's decision.
When General Motors declined to pay all bills for psychiatric care,
Barnowsky petitioned the magistrate, seeking payment and a penalty against
General Motors. The magistrate indicated that omitting payment for mental
treatment in the original order was inadvertent, and issued another
order directing General Motors to pay. General Motors appealed to the
WCAC. The WCAC concluded that the legal doctrine of res judicata barred
Barnowsky's recovery. In other words, the magistrate's first order was
final and could not be altered. In an unpublished decision, a 2-1 Court
of Appeals majority reversed the WCAC. The Court of Appeals held that
res judicata did not prevent the magistrate from correcting what amounted
to a clerical error. In dissent, Judge Brian Zahra found plaintiff's
failure to timely appeal the magistrate's first order meant that the
plaintiff forfeited the issue. General Motors appeals.
|
