Chambers v. Thomas Roulston, Inc.
214 A.D. 825
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1925·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
The evidence failed to show and the findings omit to state the precise nature and extent of the disfigurement found. Without such evidence and such a finding we are unable to say that the disfigurement was “ serious ” and “ permanent,” and, therefore, cannot affirm the award. All concur. Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Chambers v. Thomas Roulston, Inc., 214 A.D. 825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).
214 A.D. 825 (Chambers v. Thomas Roulston, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Claim of Sorgi v. Siegfried Construction Co.
17 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1962)