Legal Opinion

Industrial Commission v. Smith

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 5, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By HAMILTON, PJ. _

If the Supreme Court in the use of the word “trauma” means that the injury must be caused by a direct blow of some character, making the injury apparent, as some language of the Supreme Court would indicate, then the commission was correct as a matter of law, and the injury would not be compensable. We do not feel justified in going that far under the present rules and decisions. We are rather inclined to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Commission v Polcen, 121 Oh St 377, 169 NE 305, wherein the Supreme Court held that a severe…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Industrial Commission v. PolcenOhio Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kemling v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  2. Industrial Commission v. LugerOhio Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Ford Motor Co. v. HunterOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
  4. Esmonde v. Lima Locomotive Works, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935
  5. Esmonde v. Lima Locomotive Works, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API