Claim of Klotzki v. Keystone Floor Covering Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Klotzki v. Keystone Floor Covering Corp.

248 A.D. 926, 291 N.Y.S. 127, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8095

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 926 (Claim of Klotzki v. Keystone Floor Covering Corp.) 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 Klotzki v. Keystone Floor Covering Corp., 248 A.D. 926, 291 N.Y.S. 127, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from decision of the State Industrial Board under the Workmen’s Compensation Law directing the carrier to provide claimant with surgical treatment of a hernia condition and excusing claimant’s failure to give written notice of injury to the employer within the statutory period. The points raised are that there was no accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, there was no compliance with section 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and that there was no competent evidence to sustain the finding of causal relation between the alleged accident and the disability. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.

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

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from decision of the State Industrial Board under the Workmen’s Compensation Law directing the carrier to provide claimant with surgical treatment of a hernia condition and excusing claimant’s failure to give written notice of injury to the employer within the statutory period. The points raised are that there was no accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, there was no compliance with section 18 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and that there was no competent evidence to sustain the finding of causal relation between the alleged accident and the disability. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 926, 291 N.Y.S. 127, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-klotzki-v-keystone-floor-covering-corp-nyappdiv-1936.