Claim of Chomenko v. Elmira Foundry Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Chomenko v. Elmira Foundry Co.

272 A.D.2d 1088

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1088 (Claim of Chomenko v. Elmira Foundry 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 Chomenko v. Elmira Foundry Co., 272 A.D.2d 1088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by a self-insured employer from an award for permanent total disability, pursuant to article 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Law which covers silicosis and other dust diseases. Appellant contests the award on the ground that the silicotic condition was not, per se, the sole cause of total disability. Claimant suffered also from bronehietasis and chronic hypertensive heart disease. But there is medical testimony to the effect that while the silicosis alone was not totally disabling it became so in conjunction with the other pathological conditions present. This was sufficient to sustain the finding of [1089]*1089the Board. {Matter of Withers v. E. I. chi Pont de Nemours & Company, 266 App. Div. 928.) Since claimant has been found to have been totally and permanently disabled the form of the award was proper, and we have no authority to direct a change in that respect. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Poster and Russell, JJ., concur; Brewster, J., taking no part.

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

Appeal by a self-insured employer from an award for permanent total disability, pursuant to article 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Law which covers silicosis and other dust diseases. Appellant contests the award on the ground that the silicotic condition was not, per se, the sole cause of total disability. Claimant suffered also from bronehietasis and chronic hypertensive heart disease. But there is medical testimony to the effect that while the silicosis alone was not totally disabling it became so in conjunction with the other pathological conditions present. This was sufficient to sustain the finding of [1089]*1089the Board. {Matter of Withers v. E. I. chi Pont de Nemours & Company, 266 App. Div. 928.) Since claimant has been found to have been totally and permanently disabled the form of the award was proper, and we have no authority to direct a change in that respect. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Poster and Russell, JJ., concur; Brewster, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-chomenko-v-elmira-foundry-co-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack