Kalee v. Dewey Products Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentButzel, J.
I cannot agree with the conclusion that plaintiff’s condition is an occupational disease within the meaning of the statutory definition, Act No. 10, pt. 7, § 1(c), Pub. Acts 1912 (1st Ex. Sess.), as added by Act No. 61, Pub. Acts 1937 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1940, § 8485-1, Stat. Ann. 1940 Cum. Supp. § 17.220). My Brother says that if there is any “internal rubbing and friction in the rotation of the arm,” because of the duties performed, and bursitis results, compensation may be awarded because bursitis caused by any process involving “continuous rubbing, pressure or vibrations of the parts…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Matter of Goldberg v. 954 Marcy Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Glodenis v. American Brass Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Madeo v. I. Dibner & Brother, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Russo v. Swift & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1939
- Claim of Nielsen v. Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.