Claim of Anderson v. Intervale Floor Refinishing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Anderson v. Intervale Floor Refinishing Co.

8 A.D.2d 551, 183 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9630

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.2d 551 (Claim of Anderson v. Intervale Floor Refinishing 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 Anderson v. Intervale Floor Refinishing Co., 8 A.D.2d 551, 183 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by a claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed a prior decision and finding of a Referee that claimant suffered no further causal disability from a series of accidents between 1935 and 1947. The issues on appeal merely raise medical issues of fact, although appellant claims that the decision appealed from is based on omissions and distortions of the record. The Referee in this case wrote a 15-page decision, analyzing very carefully claimant’s contentions, which was affirmed by the board. As we read the record there was ample evidence to sustain the board’s determination. There is rather strong proof of a medical character that claimant was actually a malingerer, but in any event the most that can be said for claimant’s case is that it presented an issue of fact. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, .P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Appeal by a claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed a prior decision and finding of a Referee that claimant suffered no further causal disability from a series of accidents between 1935 and 1947. The issues on appeal merely raise medical issues of fact, although appellant claims that the decision appealed from is based on omissions and distortions of the record. The Referee in this case wrote a 15-page decision, analyzing very carefully claimant’s contentions, which was affirmed by the board. As we read the record there was ample evidence to sustain the board’s determination. There is rather strong proof of a medical character that claimant was actually a malingerer, but in any event the most that can be said for claimant’s case is that it presented an issue of fact. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, .P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 551, 183 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-anderson-v-intervale-floor-refinishing-co-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack