Claim of Maczek v. James McKinney & Son
This text of 274 A.D. 1081 (Claim of Maczek v. James McKinney & Son) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from a decision and order discharging the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability, and also from the award of compensation made against appellants. The chief issue on appeal is whether the employer furnished medical treatment such as to constitute an advance payment of compensation within three years prior to September 5, 1946, which was the date of claimant’s application to reopen. Unquestionably some treatment was given during the three-year period by a physician originally selected by the employer. It does not appear that the physician was ever discharged by the employer or that he ever rendered a bill to the claimant. Under the circumstances we cannot say that there is no evidence to support the finding of the board on this issue. The award was proper in form and correctly made under the provisions of subdivision 4-a of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Matter of Eppenstein v. Adams & Co., 224 App. Div. 332, affd. 250 N. Y. 562). Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
274 A.D. 1081, 85 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1949 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-maczek-v-james-mckinney-son-nyappdiv-1949.