Claim of Flicker v. Mac Sign Co.

227 A.D. 673

Opinions

[674]*674Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board, on the authority of Matter of Bernstein v. Hoffman (219 App. Div. 152); Matter of Rubenstein v. Pechter Baking Co. (224 id. 324; affd., 249 N. Y. 433); Matter of Wells v. General Carbonic Co. (224 App. Div. 805); Matter of Rounds v. Davis Furniture Co. (250 N. Y. 405). The toe is recognized by the statute (Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 15, subd. 3, ¶ h) as a member separate and apart from the foot (Workmen’s Comp. Law, §. 15, subd. 3, ¶ d) and an injury to the toe and also to ankle of the same foot is properly compensated under paragraph u of subdivision 3 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Hinman, Davis, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Van Kirk, P. J., dissents, and votes for reversal and to remit claim, with a memorandum.

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

Claim of Flicker v. Mac Sign Co., 227 A.D. 673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

227 A.D. 673 (Claim of Flicker v. Mac Sign Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Claim of Hoffman v. Chatham Electric Light, Heat & Power Co.
164 N.E. 341 (New York Court of Appeals, 1928)
Matter of Rounds v. Davis Furniture Co.
165 N.E. 827 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Claim of Bernstein v. Hoffman
219 A.D. 152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)
Claim of Wells v. General Carbonic Co.
224 A.D. 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1928)