Claim of Bohdolan v. Goodley Holding Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Bohdolan v. Goodley Holding Co.

248 A.D. 844, 290 N.Y.S. 264, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7586

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 844 (Claim of Bohdolan v. Goodley Holding 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 Bohdolan v. Goodley Holding Co., 248 A.D. 844, 290 N.Y.S. 264, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

The claimant was the superintendent of a building in New York city and while standing on a stepladder in the course of his work he fell to the concrete floor and sustained serious injuries. The appellants contend that there is no adequate proof to sustain the finding of the Board as to the extent of injury and disability; also that the claimant unreasonably refused to submit to observation and tests in the hospital; and also that the Board erred in determining the wage rate and the reduced earning capacity. The evidence was sufficient to establish the injuries found. The claimant did not refuse to be physically examined, nor did he even refuse to go to a hospital for observation by a doctor, except the one who, as he contends, subjected him to exposure in a cold room [845]*845on a previous occasion. He was not required by the Board to submit to the carrier’s request, and, therefore, did not unreasonably refuse to submit to tests and observation in the hospital within the meaning of section 19 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The evidence was sufficient to support the wage rate as found. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.

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

The claimant was the superintendent of a building in New York city and while standing on a stepladder in the course of his work he fell to the concrete floor and sustained serious injuries. The appellants contend that there is no adequate proof to sustain the finding of the Board as to the extent of injury and disability; also that the claimant unreasonably refused to submit to observation and tests in the hospital; and also that the Board erred in determining the wage rate and the reduced earning capacity. The evidence was sufficient to establish the injuries found. The claimant did not refuse to be physically examined, nor did he even refuse to go to a hospital for observation by a doctor, except the one who, as he contends, subjected him to exposure in a cold room [845]*845on a previous occasion. He was not required by the Board to submit to the carrier’s request, and, therefore, did not unreasonably refuse to submit to tests and observation in the hospital within the meaning of section 19 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The evidence was sufficient to support the wage rate as found. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, MeNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 844, 290 N.Y.S. 264, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-bohdolan-v-goodley-holding-co-nyappdiv-1936.