Legal Opinion

Claim of Kazia v. Woodcrest Construction Co.

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

Decided November 12, 1953PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The question here presented is whether the claim is barred by section 67 of article 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (L. 1936, ch. 887, as amd. by L. 1940, ch. 548), as it read prior to its repeal by chapter 431 of the Laws of 1947. Section 67 provided: “ An employer shall be liable for the payments prescribed by this article for silicosis or other dust disease when disability of an employee resulting in loss of earnings shall be due to an employment in a hazardous occupation in which he was employed, and such disability results within one year after the last injurious exposure in such…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Claim of Kopec v. Buffalo Brake Beam-Acme Steel & Malleable Iron WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1952
  2. Claim of Tirelli v. Contractors for Dry Docks & J. Rich Steers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Claim of Gajewski v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
  2. Claim of Kazia v. Woodchest Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API