Sinozko v. Morse Chain Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sinozko v. Morse Chain Co.

34 A.D.2d 1054, 312 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 1054 (Sinozko v. Morse Chain Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sinozko v. Morse Chain Co., 34 A.D.2d 1054, 312 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 12, 1968, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. In view of claimant’s account concerning the striking of her elbow, the proof of her failure to notify the foremen of the blow to said joint and her omission to include same initially to an orthopedic consultant as part of the medical history, as well as evidence concerning the side of the elbow involved, the question of whether claimant in fact had sustained an accidental injury to the right elbow was one of fact for the board (Matter of Giocastro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 24 A D 2d 679; Matter of Zruk v. Forest Mills Eosp., 14 A D 2d 952). The selection by the board, as between the conflicting opinions of the orthopedist and the neurosurgeon on the subject of causal relationship, was also an exercise of its fact-finding power, it not being this court’s function to determine which is the more persuasive (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucei <& Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529, 532-533). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

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

Cooke, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed December 12, 1968, which disallowed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. In view of claimant’s account concerning the striking of her elbow, the proof of her failure to notify the foremen of the blow to said joint and her omission to include same initially to an orthopedic consultant as part of the medical history, as well as evidence concerning the side of the elbow involved, the question of whether claimant in fact had sustained an accidental injury to the right elbow was one of fact for the board (Matter of Giocastro v. New York City Tr. Auth., 24 A D 2d 679; Matter of Zruk v. Forest Mills Eosp., 14 A D 2d 952). The selection by the board, as between the conflicting opinions of the orthopedist and the neurosurgeon on the subject of causal relationship, was also an exercise of its fact-finding power, it not being this court’s function to determine which is the more persuasive (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucei <& Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529, 532-533). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Cooke, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 1054, 312 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinozko-v-morse-chain-co-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack