Claim of Huhn v. Gehnrich Indirect Heat Oven Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Huhn v. Gehnrich Indirect Heat Oven Co.

225 A.D. 839

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 225 A.D. 839 (Claim of Huhn v. Gehnrich Indirect Heat Oven 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 Huhn v. Gehnrich Indirect Heat Oven Co., 225 A.D. 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Van Kirk, P. J., Davis, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Hinman, J., dissents, on the ground that the second accident was not proximately connected with the previous accidental injury, for which the claimant was being medically treated, and that if claimant is to be considered as having been injured in a new accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, while on an errand to the doctor for such medical treatment during working hours, there is no finding that he was paid wages for the time consumed and that the employer directed claimant to go for a treatment during working hours at the employer’s expense for some purpose found to be beneficial to the employer.

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

Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Van Kirk, P. J., Davis, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ., concur; Hinman, J., dissents, on the ground that the second accident was not proximately connected with the previous accidental injury, for which the claimant was being medically treated, and that if claimant is to be considered as having been injured in a new accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, while on an errand to the doctor for such medical treatment during working hours, there is no finding that he was paid wages for the time consumed and that the employer directed claimant to go for a treatment during working hours at the employer’s expense for some purpose found to be beneficial to the employer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D. 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-huhn-v-gehnrich-indirect-heat-oven-co-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack