Claim of Salemi v. Farrand Optical Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Claim of Salemi v. Farrand Optical Co.

100 N.E.2d 36, 302 N.Y. 837, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 955

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 100 N.E.2d 36 (Claim of Salemi v. Farrand Optical Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Salemi v. Farrand Optical Co., 100 N.E.2d 36, 302 N.Y. 837, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 955 (N.Y. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

*839 Order of the Appellate Division reversed and decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. The evidence, while insufficient to sustain the board’s finding that claimant’s loss of vision in his left eye was caused by the accident of November 14, 1944, was nevertheless sufficient to sustain the further findings of the board that, on March 21, 1945, while claimant was workng for his employer on a grinder, a foreign body entered his left eye and that the loss of vision resulted therefrom. The failure to file a claim within two years does not bar claimant from receiving compensation as the medical treatment administered by the employer’s plant nurse in removing the foreign body from his eye constituted an advance payment within the meaning of section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. No opinion.

Concur: Lottghean, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Fboessel, JJ.

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

*839 Order of the Appellate Division reversed and decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. The evidence, while insufficient to sustain the board’s finding that claimant’s loss of vision in his left eye was caused by the accident of November 14, 1944, was nevertheless sufficient to sustain the further findings of the board that, on March 21, 1945, while claimant was workng for his employer on a grinder, a foreign body entered his left eye and that the loss of vision resulted therefrom. The failure to file a claim within two years does not bar claimant from receiving compensation as the medical treatment administered by the employer’s plant nurse in removing the foreign body from his eye constituted an advance payment within the meaning of section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. No opinion.

Concur: Lottghean, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Fboessel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 N.E.2d 36, 302 N.Y. 837, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-salemi-v-farrand-optical-co-ny-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack