Claim of Fox v. Maxfield's Wine Cellars, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Fox v. Maxfield's Wine Cellars, Inc.

255 A.D. 905, 7 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5823

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 905 (Claim of Fox v. Maxfield's Wine Cellars, Inc.) 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 Fox v. Maxfield's Wine Cellars, Inc., 255 A.D. 905, 7 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award of disability compensation and death benefits made under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. It has been found below that decedent was injured by being struck in the abdomen by a plow handle causing a perforation of an ulcer of the duodenum resulting in death. The question is whether the evidence sustains the finding of an accident. Decedent’s son, who was plowing about forty feet behind his father found him lying on the ground at the end of a furrow suffering from a pain in the side. They had been working on a stony side hill. Decedent on different occasions stated that the plow handle struck him in the stomach. The attending circumstances, including the sudden onset, the employer’s first report of injury, the attending physician’s report, the proof of death, all corroborate the hearsay statements. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Appeal from an award of disability compensation and death benefits made under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. It has been found below that decedent was injured by being struck in the abdomen by a plow handle causing a perforation of an ulcer of the duodenum resulting in death. The question is whether the evidence sustains the finding of an accident. Decedent’s son, who was plowing about forty feet behind his father found him lying on the ground at the end of a furrow suffering from a pain in the side. They had been working on a stony side hill. Decedent on different occasions stated that the plow handle struck him in the stomach. The attending circumstances, including the sudden onset, the employer’s first report of injury, the attending physician’s report, the proof of death, all corroborate the hearsay statements. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 905, 7 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-fox-v-maxfields-wine-cellars-inc-nyappdiv-1938.