Legal Opinion

Claim of Gainey v. Warren Nash Motor Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 15, 1930PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

There are four primary fields of vision. The evidence indicates •that the claimant has perfect vision in the injured eye except that in one field there is loss of binocular vision. This partial loss of binocular vision does not indicate that he has had a total loss of one eye under the provisions of section 15, subdivision 3, paragraph p, of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The construction put on this section by the Board physician, Doctor Harnish, and by the Board itself, was erroneous. The paragraph cited contemplates a substantially complete loss of binocular vision in order that…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Claim of Hurley v. E. R. Wolcott, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1967
  2. Claim of Pulaski v. Shatsky Metal Stamping Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API