Claim of Holmes v. Communipaw Steel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Holmes v. Communipaw Steel Co.

186 A.D. 645, 174 N.Y.S. 772, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5894

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1919

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D. 645 (Claim of Holmes v. Communipaw Steel 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 Holmes v. Communipaw Steel Co., 186 A.D. 645, 174 N.Y.S. 772, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinions

Lyon, J.:

Two questions are presented by this appeal, whether the death resulted from the injury, and whether the Workmen’s Compensation Law of New York State is applicable.

The deceased was a housesmith. His employer was the Communipaw Steel Company. It had an office in New York city and a plant in Brooklyn, N. Y. The deceased resided in New York, was hired in New York, and was paid in New York. The accident occurred while he was working for his employer at the plant of the American Smelting and Refining Company at Maurer, N. J., July 11, 1917. It does not appear that he was hired to work exclusively in the State of New Jersey, and the inference may be drawn that he was hired to work wherever his employer sent him. He was struck on the head by a piece of iron. He returned to work a day or two after the injury and worked until August 24, 1917. During that time he was depressed, morose, would not talk, nor eat, cried at times, and complained of pains in the head. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital and was committed to Central Islip State Hospital. The Commission found that “ At the time of said accident, he was apparently suffering from a constitutional disease of a specific character and the injuries sustained on July 11, 1917, produced general paralysis, which caused his death on December 25, 1917.”

Upon the trial there was much conflicting medical testimony given as to the cause of the death. It resolved itself mainly into the question whether the pathologists’ findings were more conclusive and competent than an opinion based on clinical diagnosis. The presumption is that the claim is within the provisions of the statute. The conclusion reached was that the precipitating cause was an injury from the blow which hastened death. The finding was sustained by the evidence, and is conclusive upon us. (McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 201 N. Y. 221; Matter of Banks v. Adams Express Co., 221 id.. 606; Matter of Van Keuren v. Divine & Sons, 222 id. 648.) The case of Matter of Post v. Burger & Gohlke (216 N. Y. 544) is decisive of the question of applicability of the New York statute. In that case the employer had an office and plant in this State; the claimant was a resident of the State, employed in the State, and sent by his [647]*647employer to perform sheet metal work in the State of New Jersey.

The award should be affirmed

All concurred.

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

Lyon, J.:

Two questions are presented by this appeal, whether the death resulted from the injury, and whether the Workmen’s Compensation Law of New York State is applicable.

The deceased was a housesmith. His employer was the Communipaw Steel Company. It had an office in New York city and a plant in Brooklyn, N. Y. The deceased resided in New York, was hired in New York, and was paid in New York. The accident occurred while he was working for his employer at the plant of the American Smelting and Refining Company at Maurer, N. J., July 11, 1917. It does not appear that he was hired to work exclusively in the State of New Jersey, and the inference may be drawn that he was hired to work wherever his employer sent him. He was struck on the head by a piece of iron. He returned to work a day or two after the injury and worked until August 24, 1917. During that time he was depressed, morose, would not talk, nor eat, cried at times, and complained of pains in the head. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital and was committed to Central Islip State Hospital. The Commission found that “ At the time of said accident, he was apparently suffering from a constitutional disease of a specific character and the injuries sustained on July 11, 1917, produced general paralysis, which caused his death on December 25, 1917.”

Upon the trial there was much conflicting medical testimony given as to the cause of the death. It resolved itself mainly into the question whether the pathologists’ findings were more conclusive and competent than an opinion based on clinical diagnosis. The presumption is that the claim is within the provisions of the statute. The conclusion reached was that the precipitating cause was an injury from the blow which hastened death. The finding was sustained by the evidence, and is conclusive upon us. (McCahill v. N. Y. Transportation Co., 201 N. Y. 221; Matter of Banks v. Adams Express Co., 221 id.. 606; Matter of Van Keuren v. Divine & Sons, 222 id. 648.) The case of Matter of Post v. Burger & Gohlke (216 N. Y. 544) is decisive of the question of applicability of the New York statute. In that case the employer had an office and plant in this State; the claimant was a resident of the State, employed in the State, and sent by his [647]*647employer to perform sheet metal work in the State of New Jersey.

The award should be affirmed

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D. 645, 174 N.Y.S. 772, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-holmes-v-communipaw-steel-co-nyappdiv-1919.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack