Claim of Segal v. Margo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Segal v. Margo

282 A.D. 786, 123 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 786 (Claim of Segal v. Margo) 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 Segal v. Margo, 282 A.D. 786, 123 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied an award for total and permanent disability allegedly due to a causally connected heart attack. Coneededly claimant was suffering from a coronary thrombus with infarct, which might occur as a result of exertion and might occur regardless of any exertion. Although the board has found differently on very similar facts, in this case the board has rejected claimant’s contention that his physical condition was the result of his work. The medical testimony as to causal connection differs, presenting only a question of fact. We may not say as a matter of law that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the board. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See post, p. 968.]

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

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied an award for total and permanent disability allegedly due to a causally connected heart attack. Coneededly claimant was suffering from a coronary thrombus with infarct, which might occur as a result of exertion and might occur regardless of any exertion. Although the board has found differently on very similar facts, in this case the board has rejected claimant’s contention that his physical condition was the result of his work. The medical testimony as to causal connection differs, presenting only a question of fact. We may not say as a matter of law that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the board. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See post, p. 968.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 786, 123 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-segal-v-margo-nyappdiv-1953.