From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Robinson v. Hamilton Avenue Hosp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 1970
34 A.D.2d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Opinion

June 30, 1970


Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board on the grounds that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the board's finding that claimant sustained a compensable accidental injury and that section 28 Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law did not bar her claim. The board found that section 28 was not a bar in the instant controversy since there had been an advance payment of compensation made by the employer through Dr. Heins, the owner of a one-half interest in the employer-hospital, who, with knowledge of claimant's accident shortly after it occurred, treated her for injuries resulting from said accident. Concededly, Dr. Heins treated claimant for her injuries and we must accept the board's conclusion that claimant told Dr. Heins as to the work connected source of her difficulties. However, to lift the bar of section 28 the medical services must have been performed in a manner to imply an acknowledgement or recognition of liability ( Matter of Schmitt v. Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity House, 33 A.D.2d 1082), and such is not established to be the case on the instant record. Rather, the only possible conclusion from the evidence is that Dr. Heins, whatever his interest in the employer, had been treating claimant regularly as a private patient for chronic back trouble since 1956 and that the services rendered in connection with the incident herein involved were performed solely as a medical practitioner treating a private patient from whom he expected compensation directly for his services (in fact subsequently he brought an action to recover payment for those services) and not as a representative of the employer. Accordingly, we find section 28 applicable and the claim must, therefore, be dismissed. We pass on no other issues raised. Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen's Compensation Board. Herlihy, P.J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.


Summaries of

Matter of Robinson v. Hamilton Avenue Hosp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 30, 1970
34 A.D.2d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)
Case details for

Matter of Robinson v. Hamilton Avenue Hosp

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of LUEGUSSIE ROBINSON, Respondent, v. HAMILTON…

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

Date published: Jun 30, 1970

Citations

34 A.D.2d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Safeway Stores

Besides not being strictly applicable to reopenings, the case has been heavily criticized, and it is rarely…

Matter of Quinn v. State, Department of Law

The board found that claimant's claim for compensation was barred by his failure to file the claim within two…