Claim of Townsend v. Union Bag & Paper Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Townsend v. Union Bag & Paper Corp.

282 A.D. 968, 125 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5594

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 968 (Claim of Townsend v. Union Bag & Paper 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 Townsend v. Union Bag & Paper Corp., 282 A.D. 968, 125 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which determined that claimant suffered an occupational disease which was causally related to his employment. Claimant’s duties in his employment required him to push a hand truck carrying fifty-gallon barrels of paste across a concrete floor. The evidence indicates that claimant suffered from a pre-existing susceptibility to pes planus third degree bilateral with metatarsalgia, commonly known as “fiat feet”. The nature of claimant’s work and the extra pressure exerted upon his feet aggravated the condition and caused it to become painful. The principal contention of appellants is that even though the work produced the pain it did not produce the condition, and therefore may not be considered an occupational disease. There is medical testimony, however, that the physical condition, aside from pain, was aggravated by the nature of claimant’s work. The decision of the board that claimant is suffering from an occupational disease contracted due to the nature of his employment, is sustained by the evidence. (Matter of Vines v. Lazar Motors, 277 App. Div. 1083.) Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

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

Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which determined that claimant suffered an occupational disease which was causally related to his employment. Claimant’s duties in his employment required him to push a hand truck carrying fifty-gallon barrels of paste across a concrete floor. The evidence indicates that claimant suffered from a pre-existing susceptibility to pes planus third degree bilateral with metatarsalgia, commonly known as “fiat feet”. The nature of claimant’s work and the extra pressure exerted upon his feet aggravated the condition and caused it to become painful. The principal contention of appellants is that even though the work produced the pain it did not produce the condition, and therefore may not be considered an occupational disease. There is medical testimony, however, that the physical condition, aside from pain, was aggravated by the nature of claimant’s work. The decision of the board that claimant is suffering from an occupational disease contracted due to the nature of his employment, is sustained by the evidence. (Matter of Vines v. Lazar Motors, 277 App. Div. 1083.) Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 968, 125 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-townsend-v-union-bag-paper-corp-nyappdiv-1953.