Legal Opinion

Claim of Rosenberg v. Scintilla Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 4, 1960Published

1Opinion of the Court

This appeal by the employer and carrier brings up for review a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board holding that the record supports a finding of “ accident and/or occupational disease ”. We have previously disapproved of such an alternative finding. (Matter of Conroy v. Rupert Fish Co., 8 A D 2d 553.) No clear-cut determination is presented for review, and the matter would have to be remitted for a clarified decision in any event. However, we are of the opinion that the evidence fails to establish either accident or occupational disease. Concededly claimant has suffered a hiatus…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Claim of Detenbeck v. General Motors Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
  2. Claim of Deyo v. Village of Piermont, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  3. Claim of Kobinski v. George Weston, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1951
  4. Claim of Meyer v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API