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
- Winford Leo Evans v. Stearns-Roger Manufacturing Co., Employer and Standard Accident Insurance Co., InsurerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1958
- Snooks's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Florczak v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
- Gidley v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1934
3Cited by8 opinions
- Profitt v. DeAtley-Overman, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1963
- Fluor Alaska, Inc. v. MendozaAlaska Supreme Court · 1980
- Servetas v. King Chevrolet-Oldsmobile Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1977
- F. A. Gray, Inc. v. DemopoulosSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
- Davidson Rubber Co. v. MathersonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.