Claim of Baron v. W. W. Norton & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Baron v. W. W. Norton & Co.

264 A.D. 802, 34 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789

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

DecidedMay 6, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D. 802 (Claim of Baron v. W. W. Norton & 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 Baron v. W. W. Norton & Co., 264 A.D. 802, 34 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the State Industrial

Board holding that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. No award of compensation was made because the period of disability was less than seven days. The decision is appealable because it comes within the purview of section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and because it might establish a basis for recovery of medical expenses. The decision itself, however, is erroneous as a matter of law on the undisputed facts. Claimant was a traveling salesman. When the accident happened he was eating a meal at a public restaurant. During the course of the meal a chicken bone became lodged in his throat, and medical treatment was required for his relief. At the time of the accident he was not engaged in the course of his employment. (Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 263 N. Y. 10; Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 276 id. 582.) Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to the appellant against the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Sehenck and Foster, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the State Industrial

Board holding that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. No award of compensation was made because the period of disability was less than seven days. The decision is appealable because it comes within the purview of section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, and because it might establish a basis for recovery of medical expenses. The decision itself, however, is erroneous as a matter of law on the undisputed facts. Claimant was a traveling salesman. When the accident happened he was eating a meal at a public restaurant. During the course of the meal a chicken bone became lodged in his throat, and medical treatment was required for his relief. At the time of the accident he was not engaged in the course of his employment. (Matter of Johnson v. Smith, 263 N. Y. 10; Matter of Goldman v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 276 id. 582.) Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to the appellant against the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Sehenck and Foster, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 802, 34 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-baron-v-w-w-norton-co-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack