Hunter v. the Viscose Company

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hunter v. the Viscose Company

178 A. 314, 117 Pa. Super. 323, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 420

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 12, 1935

DocketAppeal 13

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A. 314 (Hunter v. the Viscose Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunter v. the Viscose Company, 178 A. 314, 117 Pa. Super. 323, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 420 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In addition to the reasons set forth in the opinion of the learned president judge of the court below, it may be noted that the claimant, in his final petition for reinstatement, set forth that the discharge of gas fumes, which constituted the accident in this case, had seriously and permanently injured his eyes, which injury was not known at the time the compensation agreement was entered into and the final receipt signed. This would bring the case within the rule referred to in McKissick v. Penn Brook Coal Co., 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 168 A. 691, and Yanasavage v. Lehigh Navigation Coal Co., 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 479, 171 A. 404. See discussion in Shetina v. Pittsburgh Term. Coal Corp., 114 Pa. Superior Ct. 108, 113, 173 A. 727. Besides, the limitation of one year ‘after the date of the last payment of compensation’ provided for by the Act of April 13, 1927, P. L. 186, as amendatory of the second paragraph of section 413 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended in 1919 (P. L. 642), does not apply to eye injuries.

The order is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

In addition to the reasons set forth in the opinion of the learned president judge of the court below, it may be noted that the claimant, in his final petition for reinstatement, set forth that the discharge of gas fumes, which constituted the accident in this case, had seriously and permanently injured his eyes, which injury was not known at the time the compensation agreement was entered into and the final receipt signed. This would bring the case within the rule referred to in McKissick v. Penn Brook Coal Co., 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 168 A. 691, and Yanasavage v. Lehigh Navigation Coal Co., 112 Pa. Superior Ct. 479, 171 A. 404. See discussion in Shetina v. Pittsburgh Term. Coal Corp., 114 Pa. Superior Ct. 108, 113, 173 A. 727. Besides, the limitation of one year ‘after the date of the last payment of compensation’ provided for by the Act of April 13, 1927, P. L. 186, as amendatory of the second paragraph of section 413 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended in 1919 (P. L. 642), does not apply to eye injuries.

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A. 314, 117 Pa. Super. 323, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-the-viscose-company-pasuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack