Claim of Zygler v. Tenzer Coat Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Zygler v. Tenzer Coat Co.

19 A.D.2d 660, 240 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650

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

DecidedJune 7, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 660 (Claim of Zygler v. Tenzer Coat 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 Zygler v. Tenzer Coat Co., 19 A.D.2d 660, 240 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Employer and carrier appeal from a disability award contending only that claimant suffered no accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. In reversing the Referee who found no accident, the board determined that a quarrel between claimant, who had a pre-existing condition, and his shop foreman over the distribution of work constituted an accident. Claimant was a sewing machine operator working as a piece worker. On the morning in question while claimant was working at his machine the foreman brought him a bundle of work for the day. Claimant considered it too small and unequal to the work given to some other employees, and a quarrel ensued which involved no physical violence ■ but was entirely oral. Thereafter claimant suffered a cerebral vascular episode which disabled him. The shop foreman testified the argument lasted “ A few minutes ”, perhaps “ ten minutes ”. The president of the employer company testified that such arguments were a daily occurrence where the work is piece work. Under such circumstances a finding of accident cannot be sustained. (Matter of Santacroce v. 40 W. 20th St., 9 A D 2d 985, affd. 10 N Y 2d 855; Matter of Cramer v. Barney’s Clothing Store, 15 A D 2d 329, affd. 13 N Y 2d 711.) The fact that the cited cases involved heart attacks and this case involved a vascular incident is of no moment. In both situations an injury followed an argument or alleged emotional strain without physical exertion. (Cf. Matter of Tillander v. Latin Quarter Cafe, 9 A D 2d 590.) Award reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Employer and carrier appeal from a disability award contending only that claimant suffered no accident within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. In reversing the Referee who found no accident, the board determined that a quarrel between claimant, who had a pre-existing condition, and his shop foreman over the distribution of work constituted an accident. Claimant was a sewing machine operator working as a piece worker. On the morning in question while claimant was working at his machine the foreman brought him a bundle of work for the day. Claimant considered it too small and unequal to the work given to some other employees, and a quarrel ensued which involved no physical violence ■ but was entirely oral. Thereafter claimant suffered a cerebral vascular episode which disabled him. The shop foreman testified the argument lasted “ A few minutes ”, perhaps “ ten minutes ”. The president of the employer company testified that such arguments were a daily occurrence where the work is piece work. Under such circumstances a finding of accident cannot be sustained. (Matter of Santacroce v. 40 W. 20th St., 9 A D 2d 985, affd. 10 N Y 2d 855; Matter of Cramer v. Barney’s Clothing Store, 15 A D 2d 329, affd. 13 N Y 2d 711.) The fact that the cited cases involved heart attacks and this case involved a vascular incident is of no moment. In both situations an injury followed an argument or alleged emotional strain without physical exertion. (Cf. Matter of Tillander v. Latin Quarter Cafe, 9 A D 2d 590.) Award reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 660, 240 N.Y.S.2d 543, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-zygler-v-tenzer-coat-co-nyappdiv-1963.