Claim of Munsie v. Di Fiore

19 A.D.2d 916, 243 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2960
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 8, 1963·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Upon remittal after a prior appeal (9 A D 2d 806), the board, after additional hearings, made an award upon finding that death resulted from delirium tremens, precipitated by the trauma of the conceded industrial accident. Although another trier of the facts might have denied credence to the testimony of the [917] claimant widow as to decedent’s hallucinations or delusions, the board chose to accept it and we find no legal basis upon which it could be rejected here; and we cannot account as less than substantial either the claimant widow’s testimony or that of her medical expert which was in part predicated upon it. The board was warranted in finding that the accidental death was not due solely to intoxication even though, contrary to the board’s conclusion, it may have been a contributing factor. (Of. Matter of Swanson v. Williams é Go., 278 App. Div. 477, affid. 304 N. Y. 624.) Appellants’ procedural objection is rendered academic by the concession in the board’s brief. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Claim of Munsie v. Di Fiore, 19 A.D.2d 916, 243 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

19 A.D.2d 916 (Claim of Munsie v. Di Fiore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hemphill Drug Company v. Mann
274 So. 2d 117 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1973)