Siegal v. Strauss

138 Misc. 380, 245 N.Y.S. 688, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1638
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 19, 1930·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The provisions of section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (as amd. by Laws of 1927, chap. 553) have no application to an action at law by a physician to recover from the employer the agreed price for services rendered to an employee at the employer’s request. (See Frant v. Cobban & Son, Inc., 133 Misc. 433; affd., 226 App. Div. 796.)

There was no proof to establish an agreement by plaintiff to conform to the Workmen’s Compensation Law, nor was there any plea of election of remedies. It was error, therefore, to receive evidence concerning the requirements of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and of plaintiff’s failure to comply therewith and to charge the jury with respect thereto.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

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

Siegal v. Strauss, 138 Misc. 380, 245 N.Y.S. 688, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

138 Misc. 380 (Siegal v. Strauss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holmes v. Garfield Memorial Hospital, Inc.
123 F.2d 166 (D.C. Circuit, 1941)
Weakley County Hospital v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co.
107 S.W.2d 226 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1937)