Legal Opinion
M. A. Hartnett, Inc. v. Coleman
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided February 8, 1967PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HERRMANN, Justice:
We are called upon in this appeal to define the term “total disability” as used in the Delaware Workmen’s Compensation Law, 19 Del.C. § 2324. The specific question presented is whether there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the Industrial Accident Board that the claimant’s total disability had terminated.
James Coleman, the claimant, was a laborer and had been such all of his adult life. He had never attended school and was illiterate; he was untrained for any other work. In 1958 while employed by M. A. Hartnett, Inc. (hereinafter “Hart-nett”), Coleman…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- General Motors Corporation v. FreemanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1960
- Lee v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Nardo v. NardoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1965
- Federal Bake Shops, Inc. v. MacZynskiSuperior Court of Delaware · 1962
- CF BRAUN AND COMPANY v. MasonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1961
3Cited by48 opinions
- Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1988
- Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board v. DuncanSupreme Court of Delaware · 1975
- Ham v. Chrysler CorporationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1967
- Abex Corporation v. ToddSuperior Court of Delaware · 1967
- Boughton v. Division of Unemployment Insurance of Department of LaborSuperior Court of Delaware · 1972
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.