Claim of Roth v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Roth v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

269 A.D. 916, 57 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 916 (Claim of Roth v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.) 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 Roth v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 269 A.D. 916, 57 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an award in favor of the claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant was employed in a factory of the CurtissWright Corporation, and while so employed was struck in the left breast by a stringer. Cancer developed. There is a difference of medical opinion as to whether the blow caused the cancer. Only a question of fact is presented on this issue. Counsel for the carrier was not permitted to examine the physician for the carrier on the theory of traumatic cancer, after the referee had inquired into the matter. We think this was erroneous, but not serious enough under the circumstances to require a reversal. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur.

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

Appeal from an award in favor of the claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant was employed in a factory of the CurtissWright Corporation, and while so employed was struck in the left breast by a stringer. Cancer developed. There is a difference of medical opinion as to whether the blow caused the cancer. Only a question of fact is presented on this issue. Counsel for the carrier was not permitted to examine the physician for the carrier on the theory of traumatic cancer, after the referee had inquired into the matter. We think this was erroneous, but not serious enough under the circumstances to require a reversal. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 916, 57 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-roth-v-curtiss-wright-corp-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack