Claim of Gillar v. Jarcho Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Gillar v. Jarcho Bros.

282 A.D. 968, 125 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5595

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 968 (Claim of Gillar v. Jarcho Bros.) 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 Gillar v. Jarcho Bros., 282 A.D. 968, 125 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board granting disability benefits to injured employee. Claimant, a plumber, then sixty-four years of age, was engaged in [969]*969installing plumbing in a housing development, and had been so employed by the employer for about seven months. In the afternoon of July 8, 1948, he was sent to the top or sixth floor of one of the buildings to do some work. It was a hot day, and claimant had to walk up the six stories because the elevator was not operating at the time, carrying his tools, some fixtures and a tank of gas for soldering, a total weight of about fifty-five pounds. On arriving at the sixth floor he was exhausted and puffing, but proceeded with his work, which required the use of a burning torch. After working about an hour and a half, claimant collapsed and was unable to catch his breath. Claimant was hospitalized for five and one-half weeks and his condition diagnosed as “ an acute left ventricular failure due to an excessive strain and stress on the cardiac musculature.” A later diagnosis of pre-existing “ coronary artery' sclerosis hypertension, bundle branch block and a paroxysmal nodal tachycardia” was made. The board has found that claimant’s activities on July 8, 1948, above outlined, subjected him to unusual strain and exertion, and resulted in accidental injuries to his heart and the resulting disablement. While the medical testimony presented sharply conflicting views, there is here presented only a question of fact which is exclusively within the province of the board to decide. The facts in this case are similar to Matter of Klein v. Louis Crndel, Inc. (280 App. Div. 1029). Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan,

Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

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

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board granting disability benefits to injured employee. Claimant, a plumber, then sixty-four years of age, was engaged in [969]*969installing plumbing in a housing development, and had been so employed by the employer for about seven months. In the afternoon of July 8, 1948, he was sent to the top or sixth floor of one of the buildings to do some work. It was a hot day, and claimant had to walk up the six stories because the elevator was not operating at the time, carrying his tools, some fixtures and a tank of gas for soldering, a total weight of about fifty-five pounds. On arriving at the sixth floor he was exhausted and puffing, but proceeded with his work, which required the use of a burning torch. After working about an hour and a half, claimant collapsed and was unable to catch his breath. Claimant was hospitalized for five and one-half weeks and his condition diagnosed as “ an acute left ventricular failure due to an excessive strain and stress on the cardiac musculature.” A later diagnosis of pre-existing “ coronary artery' sclerosis hypertension, bundle branch block and a paroxysmal nodal tachycardia” was made. The board has found that claimant’s activities on July 8, 1948, above outlined, subjected him to unusual strain and exertion, and resulted in accidental injuries to his heart and the resulting disablement. While the medical testimony presented sharply conflicting views, there is here presented only a question of fact which is exclusively within the province of the board to decide. The facts in this case are similar to Matter of Klein v. Louis Crndel, Inc. (280 App. Div. 1029). Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan,

Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 968, 125 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-gillar-v-jarcho-bros-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack