Claim of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 973 (Claim of Hedlund v. United Exposition Decorating Co.) 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 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).

Pincite

Opinion

[974]*974In our view the [975]*975board 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

[974]*974In our view the [975]*975board 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 973, 225 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hedlund-v-united-exposition-decorating-co-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack