Legal Opinion
Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided December 5, 1938No. 7171PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
A question arises under the Employees’ Compensation Act of the District of Columbia.1 Section 8, which is headed “Compensation for disability,” requires the payment of various sums for various injuries; e. g. “In case of disability total in character but temporary in quality 66% per centum of the average weekly wages shall be paid to the employee during the continuance thereof.” Section 7, which is headed “Medical service and supplies,” requires the employer to furnish “medical, surgical, and other attendance or treatment * * * for such period as the nature of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baltimore & Phila. Steamboat Co. v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Liberty Mut. Ins. v. ParkerDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1937
- Union Stevedoring Corp. v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1938
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hitt v. CardilloDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1942
- Norton v. Travelers Ins.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- American Train Dispatchers Association v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Csx Transportation, Inc., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995
- American Train Dispatchers Association v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Csx Transportation, Inc., IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1995