Hotz v. Baker Paint & Varnish Co.
This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 1079 (Hotz v. Baker Paint & Varnish Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
* * * In his petition, petitioner, George Hotz, alleges that on the 16th day of May, 1924, he sustained a double hernia.. The respondent produced several witnesses, who- testified that petitioner neither complained of any injury on that -day, nor stopped work, except at the usual time, which was five p. jr. It.is quite clear that the five requirements in [1080]*1080reference of hernia, as contained in subdivision (x), paragraph 11 of the act, have not been, complied with by the petitioner.
I, therefore, find in favor of the respondent, Baker Paint and Varnish Company, and against the petitioner, George Hotz, and dismiss the petition.
John J. Stahl,
Referee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 N.J. Misc. 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotz-v-baker-paint-varnish-co-njlaborcomp-1924.