Murray v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Murray v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.

13 A.2d 106, 140 Pa. Super. 66, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 413

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 11, 1940

DocketAppeal, 230

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.2d 106 (Murray v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.) 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

Murray v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co., 13 A.2d 106, 140 Pa. Super. 66, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 413 (Pa. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The injury for which the claimant sought compensation was a detached retina, resulting in the permanent loss of the use of the left eye, caused, it was alleged, by being hit on the forehead by the handle of a drill press, with sufficient force or severity to make it bleed and leave a scar visible at the time of the hearing, six months later.

Two medical witnesses testified on claimant’s behalf. Dr. Linn (pp. 32a-33a and 65a-67a) stated “positively” and “without reservation” that in his opinion the detached retina, which resulted in the loss of the eye, was caused by the blow on the forehead. Dr. Hunter (p. 55a) *68 gave it as his conclusion that the blow was either the original cause or the exciting cause.

The testimony is neither incredible nor improbable and it supports the findings of the referee, which were affirmed by the board.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The injury for which the claimant sought compensation was a detached retina, resulting in the permanent loss of the use of the left eye, caused, it was alleged, by being hit on the forehead by the handle of a drill press, with sufficient force or severity to make it bleed and leave a scar visible at the time of the hearing, six months later.

Two medical witnesses testified on claimant’s behalf. Dr. Linn (pp. 32a-33a and 65a-67a) stated “positively” and “without reservation” that in his opinion the detached retina, which resulted in the loss of the eye, was caused by the blow on the forehead. Dr. Hunter (p. 55a) *68 gave it as his conclusion that the blow was either the original cause or the exciting cause.

The testimony is neither incredible nor improbable and it supports the findings of the referee, which were affirmed by the board.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.2d 106, 140 Pa. Super. 66, 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-westinghouse-electric-manufacturing-co-pasuperct-1940.