Claim of Andrew v. Cameron Bros. Boat Livery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Andrew v. Cameron Bros. Boat Livery

22 A.D.2d 727, 253 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2991

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 727 (Claim of Andrew v. Cameron Bros. Boat Livery) 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 Andrew v. Cameron Bros. Boat Livery, 22 A.D.2d 727, 253 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The facts respecting the “ heavy and laborious work activities ” found causative of decedent’s fatal coronary thrombosis had to be established by proof of decedent’s conversation with his wife before he left for work, as the board’s .brief concedes; but although some of the tasks he told her that he expected to perform constituted his usual work, on weekdays at least, there was some evidence that the heavier work was not required on Sundays or on the particular Sunday on which he was stricken while at work; and we find lacking the required corroboration of ithe hearsay “by circumstances or other proof ” (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 118); and thus the predicate of the medical opinion evidence of causation fails. Decision reversed and case remitted, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The facts respecting the “ heavy and laborious work activities ” found causative of decedent’s fatal coronary thrombosis had to be established by proof of decedent’s conversation with his wife before he left for work, as the board’s .brief concedes; but although some of the tasks he told her that he expected to perform constituted his usual work, on weekdays at least, there was some evidence that the heavier work was not required on Sundays or on the particular Sunday on which he was stricken while at work; and we find lacking the required corroboration of ithe hearsay “by circumstances or other proof ” (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 118); and thus the predicate of the medical opinion evidence of causation fails. Decision reversed and case remitted, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 727, 253 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-andrew-v-cameron-bros-boat-livery-nyappdiv-1964.