Legal Opinion

Claim of Detenbeck v. General Motors Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 16, 1956PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Voorhis, J.

Claimant sustained a back injury while employed in appellant’s industrial plant in Buffalo, Few York. The nature of the work in which he was engaged was not such as to produce disabilities of this description among the rank and file of men. This condition in claimant’s case was due to a congenital defect of the spine. He has not been held to have sustained an industrial accident; workmen’s compensation has been awarded upon the theory that he is the victim of an occupational disease. In affirming, the Appellate Division thus summarized the undisputed facts: ‘ ‘ While a normal person would not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Matter of Goldberg v. 954 Marcy Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
  2. Matter of Harman v. Republic Aviation Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1948
  3. Claim of Champion v. W. & L. E. GurleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
  4. Claim of Buchanan v. Bethlehem Steel Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1951
  5. Matter of Peloso v. D'Alessio BrothersNew York Court of Appeals · 1948

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Air Mod Corporation v. NewtonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1965
  2. United States Steel Corp. v. DykesIndiana Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Beaudry v. Winchester Plywood CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Claim of Perez v. Pearl-Wick Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  5. Claim of Burris v. LewisNew York Court of Appeals · 1957

60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API