Legal Opinion
Claim of Freeland v. Endicott Forging & Manufacturing Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 18, 1931PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVan Kirk, P. J.
After the appeal was taken in this case amended findings were made. It is stipulated that the appellants present but two propositions:
1. That the Industrial Board must rescind the award for serious facial disfigurement for $1,500, previously made and paid, and give credit to the appellants for such amount against the award for decreased earnings.
2. That the Industrial Board has failed to give the proper credit for earning capacity as required by the authorities.
The first question arises under subdivision 3 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. This subdivision has not been changed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matter of Marhoffer v. . MarhofferNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Matter of Sweeting v. . American Knife Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Clark v. HayesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Matter of Clark v. . HayesNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Claim of Nycz v. Buffalo Body Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
3Cited by9 opinions
- Clarence Rupert v. Todd Shipyards Corporation, a Corporation and Pacific Indemnity Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- Elkins v. LallierNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1934
- Claim of Gallman v. Walt's Tree Service, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
- Soper v. Gouverneur Talc Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Dinelle v. Workshop, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.