Claim of Ksiuk v. Penn Silk Mills Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Ksiuk v. Penn Silk Mills Inc.

235 A.D. 881

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1932·Published

Opinion

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event, on the ground that there being no evidence to sustain the finding as to permanent defect in the wrist, and it appearing that there was not a total loss or loss of use of two .or more digits (Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 15, subd. 3, q), the award for thirty-five per cent for loss of use of hand was erroneous and should have been confined exclusively to the fingers. (Matter of Rounds v. Davis Furniture Co., 250 N. Y. 405.) AE concur, except HiE and McNamee, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that the evidence sustains the finding that there was a hand injury.

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

Award reversed and claim remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event, on the ground that there being no evidence to sustain the finding as to permanent defect in the wrist, and it appearing that there was not a total loss or loss of use of two .or more digits (Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 15, subd. 3, q), the award for thirty-five per cent for loss of use of hand was erroneous and should have been confined exclusively to the fingers. (Matter of Rounds v. Davis Furniture Co., 250 N. Y. 405.) AE concur, except HiE and McNamee, JJ., who dissent and vote to affirm upon the ground that the evidence sustains the finding that there was a hand injury.

Claim of Ksiuk v. Penn Silk Mills Inc., 235 A.D. 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

235 A.D. 881 (Claim of Ksiuk v. Penn Silk Mills Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related