General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Britton

D.C. Circuit

General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Britton

255 F.2d 544, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 135

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 1958

DocketNo. 14255

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 F.2d 544 (General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Britton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Britton, 255 F.2d 544, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 135 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants had asked the District Court wholly to suspend or set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s award of compensation to Mrs. Viola R. Bowman and to dismiss her claim. After consideration of cross motions for summary judgment, the motion of the Deputy Commissioner was granted and the action was dismissed. Basically the case involves the correctness of the finding by the Deputy Commissioner that the injury of the employee-claimant arose out of and in the course of her employment.

Mrs. Bowman concededly was employed as resident manager of an apartment house on twenty-four hour duty, seven days a week. She was subject to call at all times, much as was the employee in Scott v. Hoage, 1934, 63 App.D.C. 391, 73 F.2d 114. That the Deputy Commissioner could find that her injury while in duty status arose out of and in the course of her employment seems clear from Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Cardillo, 1940, 72 App.D.C. 52, 112 F.2d 11, certiorari denied, 1940, 310 U.S. 649, 60 S.Ct. 1100, 84 L.Ed. 1415. It would seem that we may go no farther in the light of O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, 1951, 340 U.S. 504, 508, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483, for we cannot say that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants had asked the District Court wholly to suspend or set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s award of compensation to Mrs. Viola R. Bowman and to dismiss her claim. After consideration of cross motions for summary judgment, the motion of the Deputy Commissioner was granted and the action was dismissed. Basically the case involves the correctness of the finding by the Deputy Commissioner that the injury of the employee-claimant arose out of and in the course of her employment.

Mrs. Bowman concededly was employed as resident manager of an apartment house on twenty-four hour duty, seven days a week. She was subject to call at all times, much as was the employee in Scott v. Hoage, 1934, 63 App.D.C. 391, 73 F.2d 114. That the Deputy Commissioner could find that her injury while in duty status arose out of and in the course of her employment seems clear from Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Cardillo, 1940, 72 App.D.C. 52, 112 F.2d 11, certiorari denied, 1940, 310 U.S. 649, 60 S.Ct. 1100, 84 L.Ed. 1415. It would seem that we may go no farther in the light of O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, 1951, 340 U.S. 504, 508, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483, for we cannot say that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F.2d 544, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-accident-fire-life-assurance-corp-v-britton-cadc-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack