Claim of Ringel v. Cammer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Ringel v. Cammer

272 A.D.2d 852

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

DecidedMay 14, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 852 (Claim of Ringel v. Cammer) 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 Ringel v. Cammer, 272 A.D.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by an insurance carrier from a decision and an award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The award was for a 25% loss of the right hand and for disability benefits due to injuries sustained in an industrial accident by claimant who had initially signed and verified a duly filed doing business or partnership certificate of the employer partnership covered by appellant’s policy. The issue was one of coverage and was determinable by whether in truth and in fact claimant was a partner or only an employee of the partnership when he Was injured. Upon this there was conflicting evidence. The finding that he was an employee only is supported by substantial evidence. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 965.]

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

Appeal by an insurance carrier from a decision and an award made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The award was for a 25% loss of the right hand and for disability benefits due to injuries sustained in an industrial accident by claimant who had initially signed and verified a duly filed doing business or partnership certificate of the employer partnership covered by appellant’s policy. The issue was one of coverage and was determinable by whether in truth and in fact claimant was a partner or only an employee of the partnership when he Was injured. Upon this there was conflicting evidence. The finding that he was an employee only is supported by substantial evidence. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur. [See post, p. 965.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-ringel-v-cammer-nyappdiv-1947.