Legal Opinion
Claim of Bervilacqua v. Clark
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 16, 1929PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.
Claimant received an injury to his left eye which necessitated its removal. An award has been made for 160 weeks. Appellants argue that the full compensation provided by paragraph e of subdivision 3 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 317), should not be awarded to the claimant, because the normal vision of the eye which he lost was only twenty-sixtieths of the theoretically normal eye which the experts used as a standard. This contention is not supported by the authorities. (Hobertis v. Columbia Shirt Co., 186 App. Div. 397; Przekop v. Ramapo Ajax…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Claim of Hobertis v. Columbia Shirt Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lawson v. Suwannee Fruit & Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Kraushar v. Cummins Construction Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1942
- Liberty Stevedoring Co. v. CardilloDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1937
- Claim of Conway v. Aluminum & Brass Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- McKenzie v. Gulf Hills Hotel, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1954
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.