Claim of Hajek v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Hajek v. Brown

255 A.D. 729, 6 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4934

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 729 (Claim of Hajek v. Brown) 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 Hajek v. Brown, 255 A.D. 729, 6 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The employer and insurance carrier have appealed from an award in claimant’s favor. Appellants contend that the Board erred in making the entire award against them. They assert that a part thereof should be charged against the State Insurance Fund. The proof shows that claimant became disabled in 1932, while working for the employer, due to lead poisoning. At that time he was absent from his employment but a few days. The State Insurance Fund was then the carrier. From that illness he completely recovered. In 1936 he again became disabled from lead poisoning. There is no proof which would warrant a finding that this was a recurrence of the 1932 disability. The State Industrial Board so found and the evidence sustains that conclusion. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

The employer and insurance carrier have appealed from an award in claimant’s favor. Appellants contend that the Board erred in making the entire award against them. They assert that a part thereof should be charged against the State Insurance Fund. The proof shows that claimant became disabled in 1932, while working for the employer, due to lead poisoning. At that time he was absent from his employment but a few days. The State Insurance Fund was then the carrier. From that illness he completely recovered. In 1936 he again became disabled from lead poisoning. There is no proof which would warrant a finding that this was a recurrence of the 1932 disability. The State Industrial Board so found and the evidence sustains that conclusion. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 729, 6 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hajek-v-brown-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack