Claim of Boucher v. Starrett Bros. & Eken, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Boucher v. Starrett Bros. & Eken, Inc.

238 A.D. 880

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 880 (Claim of Boucher v. Starrett Bros. & Eken, Inc.) 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 Boucher v. Starrett Bros. & Eken, Inc., 238 A.D. 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event. The evidence establishes that the periods of idleness of the claimant were due to the intermittent character of his occupation and not to his injury or physical defects. (Matter of Jordan v. Decorative Co., 230 N. Y. 522, 525; Matter of Marhoffer v. Marhoffer, 220 id. 543.) Crapser, J., concurs; [881]*881McNamee and Bliss, JJ., concur for reversal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence upon which to fix the reduced wage-earning capacity; Hill, P. J., and Rhodes, J., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the evidence sustains a finding of reduced earning capacity which was properly fixed under subdivision 5-a of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

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

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event. The evidence establishes that the periods of idleness of the claimant were due to the intermittent character of his occupation and not to his injury or physical defects. (Matter of Jordan v. Decorative Co., 230 N. Y. 522, 525; Matter of Marhoffer v. Marhoffer, 220 id. 543.) Crapser, J., concurs; [881]*881McNamee and Bliss, JJ., concur for reversal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence upon which to fix the reduced wage-earning capacity; Hill, P. J., and Rhodes, J., dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that the evidence sustains a finding of reduced earning capacity which was properly fixed under subdivision 5-a of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-boucher-v-starrett-bros-eken-inc-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack