Claim of Jones v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

9 A.D.2d 804, 192 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6145
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 1959
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 A.D.2d 804 (Claim of Jones v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool 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 Jones v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 9 A.D.2d 804, 192 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Deceased employee died as the result of a heart attack suffered on the job. After the attack he told his wife that “ I lifted something heavy and I felt * * * pain ”, and the history given to the examining physician at the hospital was that he had lifted a heavy object ”. The problem on appeal is whether these hearsay statements on the occurrence of an accident are sufficiently corroborated. There is proof that decedent suffered the attack while actually working; and that the work he was doing involved strenuous physical effort. He loaded from 50 to 100 trash cans into trucks or dolleys, lifting them about as high as a table ”. The cans weighed from 40 to 100 pounds depending on the material in them. The nurse’s records in the first aid station at the plant show decedent was suffering severe pain while actually at work in the plant, and was put to bed. The employer’s report of injury filed with the board, apparently incorporating some of the material in its first aid records, seems to amount to an admission that the disability was associated with the work. All this constitutes sufficient corroboration of the hearsay statements. The statutory corroboration required is not as technical as that at common law; it may be by “circumstances or other evidence”. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 118). Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Gibson and Herlihy, JJ.

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

Related

Claim of Goldstone v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
57 A.D.2d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Claim of Nickels v. L. J. Thornton, Inc.
53 A.D.2d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 A.D.2d 804, 192 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-jones-v-chicago-pneumatic-tool-co-nyappdiv-1959.