Claim of Franceschetti v. Solvay Process Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Franceschetti v. Solvay Process Co.

254 A.D. 717, 4 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7238

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

DecidedApril 27, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 717 (Claim of Franceschetti v. Solvay Process 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 Franceschetti v. Solvay Process Co., 254 A.D. 717, 4 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant sustained an injury to his left eye which resulted in its complete loss of vision. His right eye was not injured in the original accident, but subsequently, due to sympathetic opthalmia, it became infected and a total loss of vision was the result. The sole question presented to us for review was whether claimant unreasonably refused to permit the removal of his left eye after the accident. The State Industrial Board has found that his refusal to submit to an operation for the enucleation of his left eye was not unreasonable. Claimant testified that his attending physician did not advise him to have it removed. There was medical testimony that this physician told claimant that his left eye would “ come pretty good ” and that he would be able to see a little out of it. There was also medical evidence that it could not be stated definitely that the removal of the left eye would have prevented the infection of the right eye. These portions of the proof, together with other facts in the record, amply sustain the finding of the State Industrial Board. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Claimant sustained an injury to his left eye which resulted in its complete loss of vision. His right eye was not injured in the original accident, but subsequently, due to sympathetic opthalmia, it became infected and a total loss of vision was the result. The sole question presented to us for review was whether claimant unreasonably refused to permit the removal of his left eye after the accident. The State Industrial Board has found that his refusal to submit to an operation for the enucleation of his left eye was not unreasonable. Claimant testified that his attending physician did not advise him to have it removed. There was medical testimony that this physician told claimant that his left eye would “ come pretty good ” and that he would be able to see a little out of it. There was also medical evidence that it could not be stated definitely that the removal of the left eye would have prevented the infection of the right eye. These portions of the proof, together with other facts in the record, amply sustain the finding of the State Industrial Board. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 717, 4 N.Y.S.2d 123, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-franceschetti-v-solvay-process-co-nyappdiv-1938.