Legal Opinion

Clemens v. Cornish

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 28, 1928No. Appeal, 320PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The record before us, which contains evidence that claimant had a heat stroke during the course of her employment with defendant, includes expert medical testimony that she was paralyzed as the result of a cerebral hemorrhage due to heat stroke, and the experts in question could find nothing else in her condition or history to account for the paralysis.

Disability by heat or sunstroke is accounted accidental under the Workmen’s Compensation Law: Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co., 261 Pa. 329; Matis v. Schaeffer, 270 Pa. 141.

Acting under the authority of sections 420 and 422 of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lane v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918
  2. Seitzinger v. Fort Pitt Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  3. Matis v. SchaefferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Parks v. Miller Printing MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  2. Schemmel v. T. B. Gatch & Sons Contracting & Building Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
  3. Jones v. United Iron & Metal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Russell v. Scott Paper Co. (Et Al.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. Gerst Et Ux. v. Smith-Faris Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API