Legal Opinion

Cate v. Perkins MacHine Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided January 27, 1960No. 4785PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLampron, J.

The findings and rulings to which the plaintiff excepted are the following:

“Mr. Cate’s refusal to have an operation raises the question as *393to whether such refusal affects his right to recover compensation. A man must act reasonably to overcome his disability; he is not entitled to recover compensation for disability avoidable by an operation which ordinary prudence advises; if he is not to be subjected to unusual risk and danger by the operation,, it is his duty to submit, if it fairly appears that the results of the operation will be a substantial physical gain ....
“Mr. Cate is apprehensive…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Winford Leo Evans v. Stearns-Roger Manufacturing Co., Employer and Standard Accident Insurance Co., InsurerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1958
  2. Snooks's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  3. Florczak v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Gidley v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Profitt v. DeAtley-Overman, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Fluor Alaska, Inc. v. MendozaAlaska Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Servetas v. King Chevrolet-Oldsmobile Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
  4. F. A. Gray, Inc. v. DemopoulosSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
  5. Davidson Rubber Co. v. MathersonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971

3 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