Papp v. Rutherford Window Cleaning Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Papp v. Rutherford Window Cleaning Co.

291 A.2d 1, 60 N.J. 439, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 259

DecidedMay 22, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.2d 1 (Papp v. Rutherford Window Cleaning Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Papp v. Rutherford Window Cleaning Co., 291 A.2d 1, 60 N.J. 439, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 259 (N.J. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This workmen’s compensation claim arises out of a heart attack allegedly induced by efforts arising out of and in the course of petitioner’s employment with both respondents. Petitioner worked for different portions of each day for each respondent. The Workmen’s Compensation Division dismissed the claim against I. T. & T. Federal Laboratories, and assessed the permanent disability resulting from the heart attack against respondent Rutherford Window Cleaning Co. alone. The County Court found both employers equally responsible, deciding that the heart attack was induced by the work strain at I. T. & T. Federal Laboratories and substantially aggravated by the employment effort engaged in at Rutherford Window Cleaning Co. The Appellate Division affirmed in an unreported opinion, with one judge dissenting.

Our examination of the record satisfies us that the County Court decision is supported by substantial credible evidence. Accordingly, we agree with the majority opinion of the Appellate Division that the County Court judgment [441]*441and its assessment of the award for permanent disability equally against both respondents should be affirmed.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

For reversal—Hone.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This workmen’s compensation claim arises out of a heart attack allegedly induced by efforts arising out of and in the course of petitioner’s employment with both respondents. Petitioner worked for different portions of each day for each respondent. The Workmen’s Compensation Division dismissed the claim against I. T. & T. Federal Laboratories, and assessed the permanent disability resulting from the heart attack against respondent Rutherford Window Cleaning Co. alone. The County Court found both employers equally responsible, deciding that the heart attack was induced by the work strain at I. T. & T. Federal Laboratories and substantially aggravated by the employment effort engaged in at Rutherford Window Cleaning Co. The Appellate Division affirmed in an unreported opinion, with one judge dissenting.

Our examination of the record satisfies us that the County Court decision is supported by substantial credible evidence. Accordingly, we agree with the majority opinion of the Appellate Division that the County Court judgment [441]*441and its assessment of the award for permanent disability equally against both respondents should be affirmed.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

For reversal—Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.2d 1, 60 N.J. 439, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/papp-v-rutherford-window-cleaning-co-nj-1972.