
    MORGAN v. CHEVROLET MOTOR CO.
    Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Aot — Unapproved Pinal Settlement Receipt Ineffective.
    Where agreement by employer to pay injured employee compensation was made by parties and approved by department of labor and industry, final settlement receipt signed by employee but not approved by department was ineffective to discontinue compensation, and therefore petition for further compensation, not being employee’s proper remedy, was properly denied.
    Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
    Submitted April 21,1931.
    (Docket No. 54, Calendar No. 35,383.)
    Decided October 22, 1931.
    Coy M. Morgan presented his claim against Chevrolet Motor Company, division of General Motors Corporation, for an accidental injury while in defendant’s employ. Plaintiff brings certiorari to review order denying further compensation.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. J. Nash, for plaintiff.
    
      J. G. Stevenson, for defendant.
   McDonald, J.

The plaintiff reviews by certiorari an award of the department of labor and industry denying compensation.

On April 19, 1929, the plaintiff suffered an accidental injury to his right foot and leg while employed by the defendant as an electrician. An agreement was entered into with the employer and approved by tbe department providing for tbe payment of compensation at $18 a week. Under tbis agreement compensation was paid in the snm of $42. A final settlement receipt was signed by tbe plaintiff and filed, bnt it was not acted on by tbe department. On tbe 13th of May, tbe plaintiff was taken back to work at light employment bnt at tbe same wages received before tbe accident. He continued tbis work until July 6th, when be was laid off. On November 29, 1929, be filed a petition for further compensation. A bearing was bad before a deputy commissioner, who denied further compensation on the ground that:

“Tbe plaintiff having failed to establish by competent proof that tbe disability he now has* as a result of tbe accidental injury be suffered on April 19, 1929, is any different than it was when be signed a final settlement receipt, that plaintiff’s claim for further compensation in tbis cause should be and tbe same is hereby denied.”

On appeal, tbe award of tbe deputy commissioner was affirmed.

It is clearly apparent that in denying compensation both tbe department and tbe deputy were of tbe opinion that they had no power to rehear tbe case, but could award additional compensation only on a showing that there was a change for tbe worse in plaintiff’s condition since tbe signing of tbe final settlement receipt. There was authority for that opinion because of tbe decision of this court in Richards v. Rogers Boiler & Burner Co., 248 Mich. 155. But subsequent to tbe award a rehearing was had in tbe Richards Case and tbe former decision modified, tbe court bolding (252 Mich. 52) that tbe final settlement receipt, not having been approved, was ineffective 5 and that it was tbe duty of the department to hear the case and determine whether compensation should be stopped, decreased, or increased.

But the department reached the right conclusion in the instant case. An agreement to pay compensation was made by the parties and approved by the department. The final settlement receipt, not having been approved, was ineffective and did not discontinue compensation under the original agreement. Lacombe v. Birds Eye Veneer Co., 254 Mich. 233. That agreement is still in force. He may sue on it in the circuit court; provided, however, that such right shall be held in abeyance pending the hearing and determination of any proceeding that may be instituted by or before the commission touching the right to compensation.

The award denied further compensation. It is affirmed.

Wiest, Clark, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred. Butzel, C. J., did not sit.  