Brooks v. Temple Sinai

Van Voorhis, J. (dissenting).

Although feeling constrained to affirm this compensation award, the .Appellate Division said: “ Medical testimony against causal relationship seems overwhelming in this record, but the bare .legal sufficiency of other medical opinion prevents our interference.” Well might the Appellate Division say that the testimony against the award is overwhelming, since both the claimant’s attending ophthalmologist and the impartial specialist examining for the Workmen’s Compensation Board testified that the condition of his eye was not due to the alleged industrial accident.…