Claim of Heck v. Melville Fire Department Co. No. 2

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Heck v. Melville Fire Department Co. No. 2

19 A.D.2d 933, 244 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2883

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

DecidedNovember 21, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 933 (Claim of Heck v. Melville Fire Department Co. No. 2) 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 Heck v. Melville Fire Department Co. No. 2, 19 A.D.2d 933, 244 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

’Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All the substantial medical evidence in the record is to the effect claimant should have an operation for the correction of the effect of an accident and that there is strong and reasonable probability the operation will be successful. The board in these circumstances is not warranted in continuing compensation on the stated ground that “claimant is not unreasonable in refusing surgery” (Matter of Peasley v. Wendling Iron Works, 277 App. Div. 622; Matter of Tillow v. Daystrom Corp., 273 App. Div. 1045; Matter of Wasyluk v. Webb <& Knapp, 12 A D 2d 555). Award reversed and claim remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further proceedings, with costs to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

’Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All the substantial medical evidence in the record is to the effect claimant should have an operation for the correction of the effect of an accident and that there is strong and reasonable probability the operation will be successful. The board in these circumstances is not warranted in continuing compensation on the stated ground that “claimant is not unreasonable in refusing surgery” (Matter of Peasley v. Wendling Iron Works, 277 App. Div. 622; Matter of Tillow v. Daystrom Corp., 273 App. Div. 1045; Matter of Wasyluk v. Webb <& Knapp, 12 A D 2d 555). Award reversed and claim remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further proceedings, with costs to the appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 933, 244 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-heck-v-melville-fire-department-co-no-2-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack