Di Carlo v. Elmwood Construction Co.
215 A.D. 857, 213 N.Y.S. 327
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1926·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
Award reversed and matter remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event, on the ground that reduction of vision previous to the accident should have been taken into account in fixing the percentage of loss of use of the eye due to the accident, under Workmen’s Compensation Law, section 15, subdivision 7, and on the authority of Ladd v. Foster Bros. Mfg. Co. (205 App. Div. 794); Lewis v. Lincoln Engineering Corp. (213 id. 545) and Przekop v. Ramapo Ajax Corp. (214 id. 512). All Concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Di Carlo v. Elmwood Construction Co., 215 A.D. 857, 213 N.Y.S. 327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).
215 A.D. 857 (Di Carlo v. Elmwood Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Claim of Bervilacqua v. S. C. Clark
222 A.D. 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)
Claim of Swan v. U. S. Light & Heat Corp.
222 A.D. 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)
Claim of Dickinson v. J. H. Teats' Sons
222 A.D. 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)