Legal Opinion
Frant v. Robert Cobban & Son, Inc.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided January 17, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDelehanty, J.
In this action by a physician to recover for services rendered to defendant’s injured employee at the request of defendant the court below gave judgment for defendant on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction.
Prior to the 1927 amendment of the Workmen’s Compensation Law a physician could recover in a common-law action against the employer for services rendered at the request of the employer to his injured employee (Weinreb v. Harlem Bakery & Lunch Room 204 App. Div. 293), although section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, which makes it incumbent upon the employer to provide…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Matter of Sandberg v. Seymour Dress Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Weinreb v. Harlem Bakery & Lunch Room, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Sandberg v. Seymour Dress Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
3Cited by4 opinions
- Frant v. Robert Cobban & Son, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
- Raisman v. Ashford Roofing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Siegal v. StraussAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1930
- Liest v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1935