TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Claim of Fortino v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co.

Before the State Workmen's Compensation Commission. In the Matter of the Claim of Nicola Fortino, for Compensation under Workmen's Compensation Law, against Merchants' Despatch Transportation Company

Claim of Fortino v. Merchants' Despatch Transp. Co., 171 A.D. 956 (1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 15, 1915
Citations
171 A.D. 956156 N.Y.S. 262
Headnotes
Master and servant— loss of part of finger.
Summary
Appeal from an award of the W orkmen’s Compensation Commission, dated February 10, 1915.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam:

The claimant in the present proceeding has an award as for the total loss of the ihdex finger of his left hand, the amputation made necessary by the injury resulting in the taking of a portion of the second phalange of the finger. Unless this court is to withdraw from the deliberate reasoning in Matter of Petrie ( 165 App. Div. 561 ), where we attempted to reach the true construction of the statute, * the determination of the Commission must be approved in this case. We are the more willing to reach this conclusion in view of the fact that any other construction would require a holding that this injury comes within “other cases,” as defined in the statute, * and might result, as was claimed in Matter of Feinman v. Albert Manufacturing Co. ( 170 App. Div. 147 ), decided at the present term, in a continuing liability largely in excess of that provided by the statute for the entire loss of a finger. We think the appellant would not care to have the rule extended beyond the limitations which are being worked out, and it is not the policy of the law to involve claimants or insurance carriers in uncertain liabilities. The award should be affirmed. Award unanimously affirmed.

See Workmen’s Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67; Laws of 1914, chap. 41), § 15, subd. 3.— [Rep.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1922: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Puritan Baking Co. v. Volton94 So. 347 (Ala. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Puritan Baking Co. v. Volton94 So. 347 (Ala. 1922)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Claim of Petrie, 165 A.D. 561 (1915) 7
Claim of Feinman v. Albert Mfg. Co., 170 A.D. 147 (1915) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list