Claim of Hoare v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

8 A.D.2d 561, 183 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9646

This text of 8 A.D.2d 561 (Claim of Hoare v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea 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 Hoare v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 8 A.D.2d 561, 183 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and carrier from an [562]*562.award of compensation based upon a finding that claimant sustained an accidental injury. Appellants’ sole contention is that claimant sustained no accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant was employed as a meat wrapper from January to July, 1955. Her duties required her to handle cold meat and, on occasions, frozen meat. Some time prior to July 6, 1955, claimant noticed that her fingers and hands became numb and swollen, accompanied by pain. However, claimant does not claim that anything unusual happened to her, and testified that she did not attribute her condition to any particular thing that happened to her at any particular time, but rather to the work over a long period of time. The record contains medical opinion that claimant was suffering from Raynaud’s disease, and that her contact with cold meat over a period of time caused symptoms to appear and caused her disability. However, the record is clear that claimant’s disability was due to disease, not accidental injury. There is no evidence that claimant sustained an accident within any accepted concept of that term. (Matter of Lerner v. Mump Bros., 241 N. Y. 153; Matter of Masse v. Robinson Go., 301 N. Y. 34; Matter of Deyo v. Village of Piermont, 283 App. Div. 67.) Award reversed, with costs to appellants, and the matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Lerner v. Rump Bros.
149 N.E. 334 (New York Court of Appeals, 1925)
Claim of Deyo v. Village of Piermont, Inc.
283 A.D. 67 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)
Claim of Masse v. James H. Robinson Co.
92 N.E.2d 56 (New York Court of Appeals, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.2d 561, 183 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hoare-v-great-atlantic-pacific-tea-co-nyappdiv-1959.