Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation

Third Circuit

Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation

209 F.2d 957, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 1954

Docket11164_1

StatusPublished

This text of 209 F.2d 957 (Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation, 209 F.2d 957, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692 (3d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The district judge found that the date of appellant’s maximum recovery from the injury involved was September 8, 1946; that the amount due him in this action for maintenance and cure was $575,' and that there was ho proof that the massage- and heat applications, self administered, under which further maintenance is claimed' were curative treatments. There is substantial evidence to justify those findings.

The judgment of the district court, 110 F.Supp. 942, will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The district judge found that the date of appellant’s maximum recovery from the injury involved was September 8, 1946; that the amount due him in this action for maintenance and cure was $575,' and that there was ho proof that the massage- and heat applications, self administered, under which further maintenance is claimed' were curative treatments. There is substantial evidence to justify those findings.

The judgment of the district court, 110 F.Supp. 942, will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 F.2d 957, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-bickart-v-union-barge-line-corporation-ca3-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack