Claim of Tarter v. Pullman Co.

274 A.D. 863, 81 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 22, 1948
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 A.D. 863 (Claim of Tarter v. Pullman Co.) 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 Tarter v. Pullman Co., 274 A.D. 863, 81 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Opinion

Appeal by a self-insured employer from .a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which confirmed a referee’s award of disability compensation to claimant. Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in September, 1945, and was awarded and paid compensation until he returned to work. With the exception of the time he was unable to work due to injuries sustained in a subsequent and unrelated accident (for which he was fully compensated) he continued in his employment without loss of earnings until March 18, 1947, when he left it and has since been unemployed. There is evidence that when he quit employment he was suffering from a residuum of the back injury of September, 1945, and that such was of a partial disabling nature; that he left his employment partly on account thereof and also because of a diseased heart condition which for aught that appears was wholly unrelated to any accidental injury. There was evidence that the residuum of claimant’s back injury partially disabled him. He was awarded compensation under then effective subdivision 6 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law at the minimum rate in the absence of evidence of greater reduced earnings. There being evidence of partial disability caused by the accident of September, 1945, the award made was allowable without proof of actual reduced earning capacity. (Matter of Bostello v. Kennedy Constr. Co., 263 App. Div. 1031.) Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — • Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ. [See post, p. 949.]

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

Related

Claim of Blum v. Jo-Mar Sportswear Co.
19 A.D.2d 440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
Claim of Glickman v. Ace Equipment Co.
18 A.D.2d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 A.D. 863, 81 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-tarter-v-pullman-co-nyappdiv-1948.