Claim of Peasley v. Wendling Iron Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Peasley v. Wendling Iron Works

277 A.D.2d 821

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

DecidedMay 10, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 821 (Claim of Peasley v. Wendling Iron Works) 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 Peasley v. Wendling Iron Works, 277 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from decisions and awards of compensation made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants’ only contention is that the board’s decision to the effect that claimant’s refusal to submit to a surgical operation designed to relieve his disability is not unreasonable, is erroneous as a matter of law. The question involved is essentially one of fact. The medical proofs that claimant’s refusal to submit to the operation is unreasonable is opinion evidence. However, the nature of claimant’s affliction, its history and the kind and character of the requested operation is such that we may not say the board’s decision is without evidence to sustain it. Decisions and awards unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ. [See ante, p. 622; post, p. 953.]

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

Appeal by employer and insurance carrier from decisions and awards of compensation made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Appellants’ only contention is that the board’s decision to the effect that claimant’s refusal to submit to a surgical operation designed to relieve his disability is not unreasonable, is erroneous as a matter of law. The question involved is essentially one of fact. The medical proofs that claimant’s refusal to submit to the operation is unreasonable is opinion evidence. However, the nature of claimant’s affliction, its history and the kind and character of the requested operation is such that we may not say the board’s decision is without evidence to sustain it. Decisions and awards unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ. [See ante, p. 622; post, p. 953.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-peasley-v-wendling-iron-works-nyappdiv-1950.