Legal Opinion

Delgaizo v. Veeder-Root, Inc.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 4, 1947PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDickenson, J.

General Statutes, Sup. 1945, § 952h, of the Workmen’s Compensation Act contains the following provision in regard to employees who have been attended by physicians or surgeons furnished by the employer: “A medical report concerning such injured employee shall be furnished the employee or his attorney by the employer, at the request of the employee or his attorney.” The plaintiff, who had been receiving compensation pursuant to a voluntary agreement under the act and medical and surgical advice from doctors furnished by her employer, made a motion to the compensation com missioner asking that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Powers v. Hotel Bond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  2. Nicotra v. Bigelow, Sanford Carpet Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  3. Basney v. SachsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1945

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Skrzypiec v. NoonanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  2. Adam v. Connecticut Medical Examining BoardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  3. Love v. J. P. Stevens & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
  4. Simmons v. BonhotelConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  5. Quinones v. R.W. Thompson Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2019

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