Legal Opinion

Flowers v. Canuso Son

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 4, 1934No. Appeal 422PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

The only question involved in this compensation case is whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the finding made by the workmen’s compensation authorities, that an injection of antitoxin given the decedent the day he was injured aggravated a condition of chronic myocarditis and later caused his death.'.' Exceptions were dismissed' by the learned court below.

The decedent, on October 8, 1931, in the course of his employment, sustained a punctured wound in the back of his left hand. He went to the Lankenau Hospital, where he was given a tetanus antitoxin…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Royko v. Logan Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Baur v. Mesta MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Euker v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Crispin v. Leedom Worrall Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  5. McAvoy v. Roberts & Mander Stove Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953

7 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