Claim of Hutton v. Ford Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Hutton v. Ford Motor Co.

9 A.D.2d 589, 189 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 589 (Claim of Hutton v. Ford Motor 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 Hutton v. Ford Motor Co., 9 A.D.2d 589, 189 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant appeals from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board awarding death benefits to the widow and children of decedent on the grounds that there was no accident, causal relation or notice. The evidence indicates that the decedent, employed as a powerhouse engineer, in a period between August 19 and 22, 1953, because of an unexperienced and unreliable fireman who was his assistant, was required to do unusual and extra work, particularly the climbing of a 20-foot ladder on three occasions during one of the working shifts. As a result thereof he suffered on or about August 26 a coronary occlusion with myocardial infarction which resulted in his death on September 2, 1953. It is further shown that an autopsy was performed which was used as the basis of expert testimony by several of the witnesses. We are satisfied from the testimony of the widow and the union representative as to the complaints made by the decedent — and the association of that testimony with the medical evidence — that an accident was established and causal relation between the accident and resulting death. While both issues were in serious dispute, the decision of the board as to the questions of fact involved were based upon substantial testimony which we have held to be within its sole province. (Matter of Palmero V. Gallueci & Sons, 6 A D 2d 911, affd. 5 N Y 2d 529.) The question of notice is another serious question of fact resolved in favor of the claimant and from which it appears that the rights of the appellant were not prejudiced. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, J. P., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Appellant appeals from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board awarding death benefits to the widow and children of decedent on the grounds that there was no accident, causal relation or notice. The evidence indicates that the decedent, employed as a powerhouse engineer, in a period between August 19 and 22, 1953, because of an unexperienced and unreliable fireman who was his assistant, was required to do unusual and extra work, particularly the climbing of a 20-foot ladder on three occasions during one of the working shifts. As a result thereof he suffered on or about August 26 a coronary occlusion with myocardial infarction which resulted in his death on September 2, 1953. It is further shown that an autopsy was performed which was used as the basis of expert testimony by several of the witnesses. We are satisfied from the testimony of the widow and the union representative as to the complaints made by the decedent — and the association of that testimony with the medical evidence — that an accident was established and causal relation between the accident and resulting death. While both issues were in serious dispute, the decision of the board as to the questions of fact involved were based upon substantial testimony which we have held to be within its sole province. (Matter of Palmero V. Gallueci & Sons, 6 A D 2d 911, affd. 5 N Y 2d 529.) The question of notice is another serious question of fact resolved in favor of the claimant and from which it appears that the rights of the appellant were not prejudiced. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, J. P., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 589, 189 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hutton-v-ford-motor-co-nyappdiv-1959.