Legal Opinion
Acquarulo v. Botwinik Bros., Inc.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided April 28, 1953PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The question to be decided is whether the workmen’s compensation commissioner was justified in suspending compensation payments to an injured workman because of his refusal to undergo an operation.
The following findings are not subject to correction: The plaintiff received a compensable injury, a sprained back, on June 21, 1949. He was paid compensation at the rate of $24.73 a week to June 6,1950, pursuant to an approved agreement. During this period he received treatment from several physicians and was twice in the hospital. These treatments proved ineffective. On July 12,1950, at an…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Czeplicki v. Fafnir Bearing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Decarli v. Manchester Public Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Mathurin v. City of PutnamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Robinson v. JacksonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Balkus v. Terry Steam Turbine Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- West v. EganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Everett v. IngrahamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- Pagliarulo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1989
- Acquarulo v. Botwinik Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.