Legal Opinion
Claim of Flicker v. Mac Sign Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 15, 1929Published
1Opinion of the Court
*674Award affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board, on the authority of Matter of Bernstein v. Hoffman (219 App. Div. 152); Matter of Rubenstein v. Pechter Baking Co. (224 id. 324; affd., 249 N. Y. 433); Matter of Wells v. General Carbonic Co. (224 App. Div. 805); Matter of Rounds v. Davis Furniture Co. (250 N. Y. 405). The toe is recognized by the statute (Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 15, subd. 3, ¶ h) as a member separate and apart from the foot (Workmen’s Comp. Law, §. 15, subd. 3, ¶ d) and an injury to the toe and also to ankle of the same foot is properly compensated under paragraph u of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Claim of Hoffman v. Chatham Electric Light, Heat & Power Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Claim of Bernstein v. HoffmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
- Matter of Rounds v. Davis Furniture Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Claim of Wells v. General Carbonic Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928