Legal Opinion
Industrial Commission v. Armacost
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 6, 1935No. 24740PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStephenson, J.
The Industrial Commission of Ohio, plaintiff in error herein, will he referred to in this opinion as the commission, and Mary Armacost, defendant in error, will he referred to as claimant.
On January 7, 1928, claimant filed with the commis sion an application for compensation for alleged infection to both eyes, caused by dyes in materials she handled. Her malady was diagnosed as chemical conjunctivitis.
Her application was refused on the ground that she had not suffered a compensable injury. Application was made for rehearing in due time and a rehearing was had, and the commission made its…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. FrankenOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Renkel v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1923
- Industrial Comm. of Ohio v. RussellOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Industrial Commission v. LambertOhio Supreme Court · 1933
- Industrial Commission v. MiddletonOhio Supreme Court · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Burns v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
- Industrial Commission v. BrummOhio Supreme Court · 1935
- Bayer v. American Shipbuilding Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1946
- Burns v. Employers Liability Ass'nOhio Court of Appeals · 1937
- Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.