Claim of Mulpagano v. Crucible Steel Co. of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Mulpagano v. Crucible Steel Co. of America

53 A.D.2d 930, 385 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15716

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 930 (Claim of Mulpagano v. Crucible Steel Co. of America) 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 Mulpagano v. Crucible Steel Co. of America, 53 A.D.2d 930, 385 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed January 16, 1975. Claimant, age 62, sustained a work related injury on November 19, 1971. When he returned for work on February 16, 1972, he applied for retirement and the application was accepted. The appellants contend that-claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market, while it is his contention that his employment was terminated because of injury. It is clear that claimant had a permanent partial disability. There is also substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant sought other employment and, in fact, did find limited part-time work. On this record the board’s determination must be sustained [931]*931(Matter of Miller v Pan Amer. World Airways, 46 AD2d 718; Matter of Santry v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 35 AD2d 1037). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed January 16, 1975. Claimant, age 62, sustained a work related injury on November 19, 1971. When he returned for work on February 16, 1972, he applied for retirement and the application was accepted. The appellants contend that-claimant voluntarily removed himself from the labor market, while it is his contention that his employment was terminated because of injury. It is clear that claimant had a permanent partial disability. There is also substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant sought other employment and, in fact, did find limited part-time work. On this record the board’s determination must be sustained [931]*931(Matter of Miller v Pan Amer. World Airways, 46 AD2d 718; Matter of Santry v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 35 AD2d 1037). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 930, 385 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mulpagano-v-crucible-steel-co-of-america-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack