From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Salemi v. Farrand Optical Co., Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 24, 1951
100 N.E.2d 36 (N.Y. 1951)

Opinion

Argued May 14, 1951

Decided May 24, 1951

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Augustine F. Massa for appellant.

Charles P. Barre and George A. Garvey for Farrand Optical Co., Inc., and another, respondents.


Order of the Appellate Division reversed and decision and award of the Workmen's Compensation Board reinstated, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. The evidence, while insufficient to sustain the board's finding that claimant's loss of vision in his left eye was caused by the accident of November 14, 1944, was nevertheless sufficient to sustain the further findings of the board that, on March 21, 1945, while claimant was workng for his employer on a grinder, a foreign body entered his left eye and that the loss of vision resulted therefrom. The failure to file a claim within two years does not bar claimant from receiving compensation as the medical treatment administered by the employer's plant nurse in removing the foreign body from his eye constituted an advance payment within the meaning of section 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Law. No opinion.

Concur: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD and FROESSEL, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Salemi v. Farrand Optical Co., Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 24, 1951
100 N.E.2d 36 (N.Y. 1951)
Case details for

Matter of Salemi v. Farrand Optical Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of DOMINICK SALEMI, Appellant, against FARRAND…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 24, 1951

Citations

100 N.E.2d 36 (N.Y. 1951)
100 N.E.2d 36

Citing Cases

Schneider v. Dunkirk Ice Cream

To the extent that Royal has urged the unfairness in holding it responsible for a claim for which the Board…

Matter of Hartzell v. General Foods Corporation

The question presented here is whether or not the actions of Dr. Robinson in regard to the claimant…