Claim of Greenberg v. Solomonick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Greenberg v. Solomonick

272 A.D.2d 851

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

DecidedMay 14, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 851 (Claim of Greenberg v. Solomonick) 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 Greenberg v. Solomonick, 272 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by an employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award to claimant made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, with lien in favor of the respondent State hospital for the treatment and maintenance therein of an injured employee who, rendered incompetent as a result of compensable injuries, was consequently committed to said hospital. The award is resisted upon the ground that the board was without jurisdiction to make it because (1) of the absence of proof of medical treatment, and (2) the treatment charged was not contracted by the injured employee. Neither ground is tenable. The award is authorized by section 13-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as amended by chapter 663 of the Laws of 1944. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur.

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

Appeal by an employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award to claimant made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, with lien in favor of the respondent State hospital for the treatment and maintenance therein of an injured employee who, rendered incompetent as a result of compensable injuries, was consequently committed to said hospital. The award is resisted upon the ground that the board was without jurisdiction to make it because (1) of the absence of proof of medical treatment, and (2) the treatment charged was not contracted by the injured employee. Neither ground is tenable. The award is authorized by section 13-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, as amended by chapter 663 of the Laws of 1944. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-greenberg-v-solomonick-nyappdiv-1947.