Claim of Allen v. Hulbert Forwarding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Allen v. Hulbert Forwarding Co.

26 A.D.2d 885, 274 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3221

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 885 (Claim of Allen v. Hulbert Forwarding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Allen v. Hulbert Forwarding Co., 26 A.D.2d 885, 274 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the Special Disability Fund (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 8) from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board holding the Fund liable for claimant’s increased permanent disability. It is clear that as the result of a physical examination conducted at the time claimant was hired in 1948 the employer was fully aware that claimant had previously had his left knee cap completely removed and engaged his services upon consideration of his condition. There is also substantial evidence that this disability when combined with the disability resulting from a 1959 work-connected injury left a total disability greater than that related to the 1959 accident alone. On this state of the record the’ board could clearly reach the determination rendered. Since the defect was an obvious handicap to employment generally, it is not controlling on the question of the Fund’s liability that the prior condition did not contribute to the second accident and did not handicap claimant’s performance of the particular work of operating a motor vehicle for which the employer hired him. (Matter of Dalaba v. Mt. View Cemetery Assn., 24 A D 2d 688; Matter of Nagorka v. Goldstein, 4 A D 2d 904.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the Special Disability Fund (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 8) from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board holding the Fund liable for claimant’s increased permanent disability. It is clear that as the result of a physical examination conducted at the time claimant was hired in 1948 the employer was fully aware that claimant had previously had his left knee cap completely removed and engaged his services upon consideration of his condition. There is also substantial evidence that this disability when combined with the disability resulting from a 1959 work-connected injury left a total disability greater than that related to the 1959 accident alone. On this state of the record the’ board could clearly reach the determination rendered. Since the defect was an obvious handicap to employment generally, it is not controlling on the question of the Fund’s liability that the prior condition did not contribute to the second accident and did not handicap claimant’s performance of the particular work of operating a motor vehicle for which the employer hired him. (Matter of Dalaba v. Mt. View Cemetery Assn., 24 A D 2d 688; Matter of Nagorka v. Goldstein, 4 A D 2d 904.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur; Taylor, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 885, 274 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-allen-v-hulbert-forwarding-co-nyappdiv-1966.