From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Ptaszynski v. American Sugar Ref. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 24, 1952
280 App. Div. 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Opinion

September 24, 1952.

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Board.


Decedent was employed as a mechanic in the boiler house of the employer's sugar refinery. On the morning of November 1, 1946, he became ill and was taken to a hospital. At the hospital it was found that he had suffered a coronary occlusion and he died on the 7th of November, 1946. The board found that decedent sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Specifically the board found that decedent suffered from a coronary occlusion because of unusual exertion and strain on his part while using force to lift or close a door to an ashpit. The only evidence to sustain this finding are the hearsay declarations of decedent. Hearsay declaration are admissible but in order to establish an accident and injury they must be corroborated by circumstances or other evidence (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 118). We can find no such corroboration in the record before us. Award reversed, on the law, and the claim dismissed, with costs to the employer-appellant. Foster, P.J., Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., taking no part.


Summaries of

Matter of Ptaszynski v. American Sugar Ref. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 24, 1952
280 App. Div. 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)
Case details for

Matter of Ptaszynski v. American Sugar Ref. Co.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of CLARA PTASZYNSKI, Respondent, against…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 24, 1952

Citations

280 App. Div. 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Citing Cases

Matter of Ohriner v. Jamaice Wet Wash Laundry

The acute heart disease itself, which could be induced entirely by natural causes, is not a circumstance in…

Matter of Guggenheim v. C. Hedke Company

In fact, all of the probative evidence supports only the conclusion that the decedent was taking the Pazners…