Legal Opinion
Matter of Casey v. Hinkle Iron Works
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 19, 1949PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBromley, J.
Ordered by the board to furnish a pair of orthopedic shoes for claimant, the employer and carrier contend that liability should rest with the Fund for Reopened Cases under section 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Their appeal poses two questions: whether a case referred by the board to its “ abeyance file ” has been closed so that a further request for compensation is an application to reopen within the scope of section 25-a; and whether the employer’s duty to furnish replacements for orthopedic shoes is the sort of liability which may be shifted to the fund.
The disability, caused by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Claim of Becker v. Marcy State HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Matter of Kiriloff v. A.G.W. Wet Wash LaundryNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Claim of Ludgen v. Jamestown Asphalt Paving Materials Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Matter of Fallon v. New York Color and Chemical CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Claim of Buddenborg v. Gilman Construction Co. of BuffaloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
3Cited by31 opinions
- Claim of Bates v. Finger Lakes Truck RentalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Riley v. Aircraft Products Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Claim of Jones v. HSBCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Claim of Rathbun v. D'Ella Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Claim of Palermo v. Primo Coat Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.