Claim of Cornelius v. Rochester Products Division, General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Cornelius v. Rochester Products Division, General Motors Corp.

272 A.D.2d 1090

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1090 (Claim of Cornelius v. Rochester Products Division, General Motors Corp.) 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 Cornelius v. Rochester Products Division, General Motors Corp., 272 A.D.2d 1090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by a self-insured employer from a decision of the Workmen’s 'Compensation Board which permitted claimant to proceed with an amputation of his left lower leg when and if he desired to do so. The decision also directed that the case he continued to the referee’s calendar for further consideration. The case had been previously closed upon a schedule award for 80% loss of use of the left foot. Appellant argues that claimant did not show any change in his condition after the schedule award was made sufficient to empower the board to change the award under section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. We think the proof warranted an inference that the cumulative effect of pain, and the medical testimony that an amputation would benefit claimant, was evidence of a change in condition sufficient to empower the board to act. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster 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 a decision of the Workmen’s 'Compensation Board which permitted claimant to proceed with an amputation of his left lower leg when and if he desired to do so. The decision also directed that the case he continued to the referee’s calendar for further consideration. The case had been previously closed upon a schedule award for 80% loss of use of the left foot. Appellant argues that claimant did not show any change in his condition after the schedule award was made sufficient to empower the board to change the award under section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. We think the proof warranted an inference that the cumulative effect of pain, and the medical testimony that an amputation would benefit claimant, was evidence of a change in condition sufficient to empower the board to act. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster and Russell, JJ., concur; Brewster, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-cornelius-v-rochester-products-division-general-motors-corp-nyappdiv-1947.