Claim of Koprda v. Cadillac Motor Car Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Koprda v. Cadillac Motor Car Division

258 A.D. 765, 14 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 765 (Claim of Koprda v. Cadillac Motor Car Division) 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 Koprda v. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 258 A.D. 765, 14 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award of the State Industrial Board under the Workmen’s Compensation Law granting disability compensation. The State Industrial Board found that claimant became disabled as the result of “ bronchiectasis and bronchial asthma, an occupational disease, which was contracted by Mm in and due to the nature of Ms employment.” Claimant’s employment was that of spraying automobiles with Dueo, in wMch employment he inhaled Duco fumes, a lacquer-nitro-glycerine preparation, wMch caused irritation of the broncM and made Mm suffer from asthmatic attacks, broneMectasis and broncMal asthma. It was also found that the disease from wMch he was suffering arose from conditions characteristic of and due to the work wMch he was doing. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Sehenck, JJ.

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

Appeal from an award of the State Industrial Board under the Workmen’s Compensation Law granting disability compensation. The State Industrial Board found that claimant became disabled as the result of “ bronchiectasis and bronchial asthma, an occupational disease, which was contracted by Mm in and due to the nature of Ms employment.” Claimant’s employment was that of spraying automobiles with Dueo, in wMch employment he inhaled Duco fumes, a lacquer-nitro-glycerine preparation, wMch caused irritation of the broncM and made Mm suffer from asthmatic attacks, broneMectasis and broncMal asthma. It was also found that the disease from wMch he was suffering arose from conditions characteristic of and due to the work wMch he was doing. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss, Heffeman and Sehenck, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 765, 14 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-koprda-v-cadillac-motor-car-division-nyappdiv-1939.