Gomes v. Howard Braiding Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Gomes v. Howard Braiding Co.

2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 46

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedApril 19, 1919

DocketNo. 226

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 46 (Gomes v. Howard Braiding Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gomes v. Howard Braiding Co., 2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 46 (R.I. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

RESCRIPT

TANNER, P. J.

The petitioner was injured on November 9, 1917, by receiving a blow from a falling ladder upon her right hand. She claims that said injury has persisted up to the present time and that she has not recovered from it. The medical testimony, however, indicates that she sustained no fracture and no 'wound, only a slight swelling which quickly subsided. She claims that sha has sustained a neuritis from said accident which still persists. She has sustained no atrophy of the parts.

Upon the weight of the medical testimony we are of the opinion that the petitioner has very greatly exaggerated her injury and that we are not justified in allowing her compensation, for more than six weeks following the injury. We will therefore allow compensation for that time.

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

RESCRIPT

TANNER, P. J.

The petitioner was injured on November 9, 1917, by receiving a blow from a falling ladder upon her right hand. She claims that said injury has persisted up to the present time and that she has not recovered from it. The medical testimony, however, indicates that she sustained no fracture and no 'wound, only a slight swelling which quickly subsided. She claims that sha has sustained a neuritis from said accident which still persists. She has sustained no atrophy of the parts.

Upon the weight of the medical testimony we are of the opinion that the petitioner has very greatly exaggerated her injury and that we are not justified in allowing her compensation, for more than six weeks following the injury. We will therefore allow compensation for that time.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Super. Ct. (R.I.) 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomes-v-howard-braiding-co-risuperct-1919.