Ross v. Austin Drilling Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Harvey, J.:
This is an action on a contract to recover for medical services. The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiffs’ evidence, and they have appealed.
The record discloses that Earl Armstrong was an employee of the defendant, the Austin Drilling Company, and both were operat*825ing under the workmen’s compensation act. While so engaged he sustained severe personal injury which, from the record, we assume was compensable under the act. He was taken to a hospital, and the plaintiff, Doctor Ross, was called to treat him. Mr. Austin was there and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Spicer v. . WilliamsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Moeser v. ShunkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
- Wilson Drilling Co. v. BeyerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Noer v. G. W. Jones Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Johnson v. Ismert-Hincke Milling Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Workman v. Kansas City Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1936
- Baker v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1937
- Dean v. Hodges Bros.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1950
- St. Mary's Hospital & Training School for Nurses of Sisters of Misericordia v. Atlas Warehouse & Cold Storage Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Weakley County Hospital v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1937
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.