Claim of Valentine v. Sherwood Metal Working Co.

189 A.D. 410, 178 N.Y.S. 494, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1919·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

There is no dispute as to the facts in this case. The claimant was employed at Syracuse by the Sherwood Metal Working Company as a riveter upon shovels. A small portion of steel was picked up by the rapid hammer used and lodged in the back of the eye-ball, defying all efforts at its removal. The State Industrial Commission has found that “ said injury resulted in the loss of the left eye,” but there is no evidence to support this finding, for the entire testimony is to the effect that the eye, with the aid of a proper glass, is nearly normal for many purposes. That there is an injury, and that it detracts from the value of the eye, there can be no doubt, but it is not the loss of an eye. The case is not distinguishable in principle from that of Frings v. Pierce-Arrow Motor Car Co. (182 App. Div. 445), and if this court was right in that case it follows that the award here under consideration must be reversed.

The award should be reversed and the proceeding remitted to the State Industrial Commission.

All concurred.

Award reversed and proceedings remitted to the State Industrial Commission.

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

Claim of Valentine v. Sherwood Metal Working Co., 189 A.D. 410, 178 N.Y.S. 494, 1919 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

189 A.D. 410 (Claim of Valentine v. Sherwood Metal Working Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gulf Stevedore Corp. v. Hollis
298 F. Supp. 426 (S.D. Texas, 1969)
Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Davis
196 S.W.2d 35 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Washington Terminal Co. v. Hoage
79 F.2d 158 (D.C. Circuit, 1935)
Kelley v. Prouty
30 P.2d 769 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1934)
Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Richmond
284 S.W. 698 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Massett v. Armerford Coal Mining Co.
82 Pa. Super. 579 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
American Zinc Co. v. Lusk
148 Tenn. 220 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1923)
Claim of McNamara v. McHarg, Barton Co.
200 A.D. 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)