Claim of Holmes v. McCampbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Holmes v. McCampbell

39 A.D.2d 624, 331 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780

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

DecidedApril 27, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 624 (Claim of Holmes v. McCampbell) 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. McCampbell, 39 A.D.2d 624, 331 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 7, 1970. Claimant, a domestic servant, fell and sustained an injury to her hip in August, 1965 while picking flowers with which to decorate her employer’s home. She did not seek medical treatment until December, 1965, did not actually begin to undergo treatment until January, 1966 and did not file a claim for compensation until September, 1967. The board, finding that claimant received wages during absences because of the injury with knowledge by the employer of such absences and that she received medical care at tbe employer’s instruction, concluded that advance payment was established and the bar to compensation for failure to file the claim within the two-year statutory period was removed. To support a finding that the bar of section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law has been lifted, wages must be paid to a disabled employee and the circumstances of the payment must be such as to imply an acknowledgment or recognition of liability (Matter of Schmitt v. Alpha [625]*625Delta Phi Fraternity House, 33 A D 2d 1082, mot. for lv. to app. den. 27 N Y 2d 481; Matter of Buxbaum v. Cumberland Provision Co., 14 A D 2d 425, app. dsmd. 12 N Y 2d 670; Matter of Lombardo v. Endicott Johnson Corp., 275 App. Div. 18). “The employer must make a gratuitous payment for something he did not get in the way of service.” (Matter of Lewis v. College Knitting Mills, 37 A D 2d 1019; Matter of Baker v. Standard Rolling Mills, 284 App. Div. 433, 436.) The determination of this issue is factual and must^he sustained if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pacer v. Graybar Elec. Co., 31 A D 2d 678). Substantial evidence to support the board’s conclusion is here present. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Cooke, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 7, 1970. Claimant, a domestic servant, fell and sustained an injury to her hip in August, 1965 while picking flowers with which to decorate her employer’s home. She did not seek medical treatment until December, 1965, did not actually begin to undergo treatment until January, 1966 and did not file a claim for compensation until September, 1967. The board, finding that claimant received wages during absences because of the injury with knowledge by the employer of such absences and that she received medical care at tbe employer’s instruction, concluded that advance payment was established and the bar to compensation for failure to file the claim within the two-year statutory period was removed. To support a finding that the bar of section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law has been lifted, wages must be paid to a disabled employee and the circumstances of the payment must be such as to imply an acknowledgment or recognition of liability (Matter of Schmitt v. Alpha [625]*625Delta Phi Fraternity House, 33 A D 2d 1082, mot. for lv. to app. den. 27 N Y 2d 481; Matter of Buxbaum v. Cumberland Provision Co., 14 A D 2d 425, app. dsmd. 12 N Y 2d 670; Matter of Lombardo v. Endicott Johnson Corp., 275 App. Div. 18). “The employer must make a gratuitous payment for something he did not get in the way of service.” (Matter of Lewis v. College Knitting Mills, 37 A D 2d 1019; Matter of Baker v. Standard Rolling Mills, 284 App. Div. 433, 436.) The determination of this issue is factual and must^he sustained if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pacer v. Graybar Elec. Co., 31 A D 2d 678). Substantial evidence to support the board’s conclusion is here present. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Cooke, Simons and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 624, 331 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-holmes-v-mccampbell-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack