Mossop v. Mossop

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Mossop v. Mossop

142 A. 739, 108 Conn. 148, 1928 Conn. LEXIS 180

DecidedJuly 16, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A. 739 (Mossop v. Mossop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mossop v. Mossop, 142 A. 739, 108 Conn. 148, 1928 Conn. LEXIS 180 (Colo. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sustained an injury to his thumb arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant employer, which necessitated his treatment at the hospital. While there he contracted scarlet fever, in consequence of which he was sent to an isolation hospital. The sole question upon this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the expense of his treatment for scarlet fever at the isolation hospital. Had the plaintiff contracted scarlet fever, a contagious disease, at his regular work, he would not have been entitled to compensation. Public Acts of 1921, Chap. 306, §11. *149 That he contracted it while in the hospital for treatment for a compensable injury does not alter the situation in his favor. On the contrary, it is clear that the disease, contracted under such circumstances, bore no causal relation to the plaintiff’s employment.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sustained an injury to his thumb arising out of and in the course of his employment with the defendant employer, which necessitated his treatment at the hospital. While there he contracted scarlet fever, in consequence of which he was sent to an isolation hospital. The sole question upon this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the expense of his treatment for scarlet fever at the isolation hospital. Had the plaintiff contracted scarlet fever, a contagious disease, at his regular work, he would not have been entitled to compensation. Public Acts of 1921, Chap. 306, §11. *149 That he contracted it while in the hospital for treatment for a compensable injury does not alter the situation in his favor. On the contrary, it is clear that the disease, contracted under such circumstances, bore no causal relation to the plaintiff’s employment.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A. 739, 108 Conn. 148, 1928 Conn. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mossop-v-mossop-conn-1928.