Claim of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co.

15 A.D.2d 973, 225 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10993
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 1962·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[974] In our view the [975] board correctly found that claimant was last employed by this employer in an occupation in which he was subject to the contraction of and actually did contract the disease and properly charged it with the initial responsibility for the award. It is argued that the occupational disease was not contracted within the 12 months previous to the date of disablement. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 40.) This question was neither raised before the board nor passed upon by it. Appellants may not create this issue for the first time in this court. (Matter of La Barge v. Mercy Gen. Hosp., 12 A D 2d 689, 690 motion for leave to appeal denied 9 N Y 2d 610; Matter of Braune v. Haas, 13 A D 2d 875, 876.) Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to be divided equally between the Workmen’s Compensation Board and claimant, and disbursements to each. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

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

Claim of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co., 15 A.D.2d 973, 225 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

15 A.D.2d 973 (Claim of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Claim of Leary v. Ward Baking Co.
63 A.D.2d 1065 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Middleton v. Coxsackie Correctional Facility
341 N.E.2d 527 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)