From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GIMENEZ v. GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1932
236 App. Div. 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

October, 1932.


Order affirmed, without costs. The art has developed to such an extent that the use of X-ray photography has become a common and generally accepted procedure in medical and surgical diagnosis. This court, therefore, recedes from the determination made by it in Lacqua v. General Linen Supply Laundry Co., Inc. ( 227 App. Div. 794), decided on the authority of Van Orden v. Madow (207 id. 827), and will follow the rule adopted in the other Departments. ( Hayt v. Brewster, Gordon Co., Inc., 199 App. Div. 68, Fourth Dept.; Hollister v. Robertson, 208 id. 449, Third Dept.; McInnes v. Cannon, 225 id. 852, First Dept.) Such examination should be permitted under such regulations as may be deemed necessary and proper. Examination to proceed on five days' notice. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

GIMENEZ v. GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1932
236 App. Div. 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

GIMENEZ v. GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY

Case Details

Full title:GRACE E. GIMENEZ, Appellant, v. GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1932

Citations

236 App. Div. 804 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Citing Cases

Mitchell v. Pure Oil Co.

To do otherwise would be stepping backward. The decisions of the New York state courts seem to be in accord…

Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp.

It is now well settled that X rays may be taken in connection with a medical examination under the foregoing…