Claim of Mayer v. Dimitry Hair Stylist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Mayer v. Dimitry Hair Stylist

271 A.D.2d 762

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 762 (Claim of Mayer v. Dimitry Hair Stylist) 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 Mayer v. Dimitry Hair Stylist, 271 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in favor of claimant. On October 15, 1940, the claimant was employed as a beauty operator and while engaged in the regular course of her employment, she tripped over a piece of broken linoleum and sustained injuries including an injury to the right arm. The accident is not contested. The principal contention of the appellants is that the award for permanent partial disability should be confined to a schedule loss. The board found that a schedule loss for the right arm is not applicable to the facts at bar. The medical testimony supports that finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 852.]

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

Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in favor of claimant. On October 15, 1940, the claimant was employed as a beauty operator and while engaged in the regular course of her employment, she tripped over a piece of broken linoleum and sustained injuries including an injury to the right arm. The accident is not contested. The principal contention of the appellants is that the award for permanent partial disability should be confined to a schedule loss. The board found that a schedule loss for the right arm is not applicable to the facts at bar. The medical testimony supports that finding. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 852.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mayer-v-dimitry-hair-stylist-nyappdiv-1946.