Legal Opinion
Claim of Champion v. W. & L. E. Gurley
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 19, 1949PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDye, J.
Coverage for occupational diseases within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (L. 1920, ch. 538)., as we have recently said, is not as broad or inclusive as coverage for accidental injuries (Matter of Harman v. Republic Aviation Corp., 298 N. Y. 285). The statute lists many such diseases by name; there are many others however not so listed and when such are contracted may be considered under the omnibus clause “ any and all occupational diseases ” (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 2, par. 28). The statute generally defines occupational diseases as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Matter of Goldberg v. 954 Marcy Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Matter of Harman v. Republic Aviation Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1948
- Matter of Foster v. Gillinder Bros., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Matter of Peloso v. D'Alessio BrothersNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
- Matter of Nayor v. Harwick Trucking Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Claim of Detenbeck v. General Motors Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Board of National Missions of Presbyterian Church v. Alaska Industrial BoardDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1953
- Claim of Buckley v. Gallagher Bros. Sand & Gravel Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1950
- MATTER OF BENWARE v. Benware CreameryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
- Brown Shoe Company v. FooksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.