Claim of Chandler v. Gabriel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Chandler v. Gabriel

272 A.D.2d 1098

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1098 (Claim of Chandler v. Gabriel) 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 Chandler v. Gabriel, 272 A.D.2d 1098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by employer and its- insurance carrier from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in favor of claimant. Claimant was employed as a laborer. On February 7, 1946, while standing on a ladder it tipped over and fell to the floor with the result that claimant was injured. The main ground of the objection of appellants to the award is that the referee improperly refused to grant an adjournment' and that the Workmen’s Compensation Board arbitrarily refused to reopen the question of the extent of claimant’s injuries. It is quite apparent that the request for adjournment was not made in good faith. The appellants do not question the accident, injuries or disability. The medical evidence clearly supports the decision of the board. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Bussell and Deyo, JJ., concur.

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

This is an appeal by employer and its- insurance carrier from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in favor of claimant. Claimant was employed as a laborer. On February 7, 1946, while standing on a ladder it tipped over and fell to the floor with the result that claimant was injured. The main ground of the objection of appellants to the award is that the referee improperly refused to grant an adjournment' and that the Workmen’s Compensation Board arbitrarily refused to reopen the question of the extent of claimant’s injuries. It is quite apparent that the request for adjournment was not made in good faith. The appellants do not question the accident, injuries or disability. The medical evidence clearly supports the decision of the board. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Bussell and Deyo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-chandler-v-gabriel-nyappdiv-1947.