Claim of Fischer v. R. Hoe & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Fischer v. R. Hoe & Co.

224 A.D. 335, 230 N.Y.S. 755, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10000

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

DecidedSeptember 20, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 224 A.D. 335 (Claim of Fischer v. R. Hoe & 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 Fischer v. R. Hoe & Co., 224 A.D. 335, 230 N.Y.S. 755, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

Claimant suffered a compensable injury of the right middle'finger. During convalescence he called at a doctor’s office for a change of- dressing, which consisted of a pack saturated with alcohol and boric acid. After leaving the office, he ignited a match to light a cigarette, and in so doing, the dressing caught fire. The burn caused the loss of a part of the thumb and little finger, and other involvements of the hand, so that an award for fifty-five per cent loss of use of the right hand was made. There is no causal connection between the hand injury resulting from the burn and the original finger injury. The only connection is that the finger first injured was bandaged. This is not sufficient. (Carr v. Bonner Steel Co., 207 App. Div. 3; Matter of Saenger v. Locke, 220 N. Y. 556.) “ In each of these cases where an award was upheld it could be fairly said * * * that the employment naturally subjected the employee to the risk by which he was injured.” (Matter of McCarter v. LaRock, 240 N. Y. 282, 289.) The lighting of the cigarette atesuch time and under such conditions was not connected with the employment.

The award should be reversed and matter remitted for consideration of the original injury to the right middle finger.

Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Davis and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur.

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event. n

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

Hill, J.

Claimant suffered a compensable injury of the right middle'finger. During convalescence he called at a doctor’s office for a change of- dressing, which consisted of a pack saturated with alcohol and boric acid. After leaving the office, he ignited a match to light a cigarette, and in so doing, the dressing caught fire. The burn caused the loss of a part of the thumb and little finger, and other involvements of the hand, so that an award for fifty-five per cent loss of use of the right hand was made. There is no causal connection between the hand injury resulting from the burn and the original finger injury. The only connection is that the finger first injured was bandaged. This is not sufficient. (Carr v. Bonner Steel Co., 207 App. Div. 3; Matter of Saenger v. Locke, 220 N. Y. 556.) “ In each of these cases where an award was upheld it could be fairly said * * * that the employment naturally subjected the employee to the risk by which he was injured.” (Matter of McCarter v. LaRock, 240 N. Y. 282, 289.) The lighting of the cigarette atesuch time and under such conditions was not connected with the employment.

The award should be reversed and matter remitted for consideration of the original injury to the right middle finger.

Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Davis and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur.

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event. n

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D. 335, 230 N.Y.S. 755, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-fischer-v-r-hoe-co-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack