Horowitz v. Rothenberg Hat Co.
New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau
1Opinion of the Court
At the outset, a chronological recital of the developments in this case, as disclosed by the testimony adduced, the stipulations of counsel and the records of this bureau, is necessary in order that the issues to be determined, be comprehended.
From the evidence, it appears that for some time prior to October 1st, 1931, the petitioner, Louis Horowitz, was employed by the respondent' as a hatter. His duties entailed the handling of and coming in contact with furs which had been treated with mercury. During the course of his employment he was exposed to the said mercury with the result that he…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- J. W. Ferguson Co. v. SeamanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1938
- Ruoff v. BlasiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
- Rightmyer v. Totowa Borough, New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1938
- Bucci v. Kirkpatrick Construction Co.Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1933
- Solazco v. Carol, New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- University of Denver v. Industrial Com'n of Colo.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1959