Claim of Gilbert v. Des Lauriers Column Mould Co.
Before State Industrial Commission, In the Matter of the Claim of James W. Gilbert, for Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law v. Des Lauriers Column Mould Company, Inc., Employer, and Ætna Life Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Woodward, J.:
We see no merits in this appeal. The claimant was employed under a New York contract. At the time of his injuries he was performing services for his employer away from the plant of such employer in the State of New Jersey. The claimant originally made application for compensation under the New Jersey statute (N. J. Laws of 1911, chap. 95, as amd.), and the insurance carrier made some payments under the act. Subsequently, the claim was made in this State and an award has been made, crediting the insurance carrier *60 with the amount paid under the New Jersey proceeding. The claim that the New Jersey Commission, having accepted jurisdiction and administered upon this claim, deprived the Commission of the State of New York of jurisdiction is, we believe, without force. It is doubtful if the New Jersey Commission ever had any jurisdiction of the case; it was one arising under the statute of this State and the contract growing out of such statute (Matter of Post v. Burger & Gohlke, 216 N. Y. 544, 554 ), and it was clearly a matter to be handled under the provisions of our statute (Consol. Laws, chap. 67 [Laws of 1914, chap. 41], as amd.), rather than under the statute law of New Jersey. The fact that the claimant was induced to invoke the New Jersey statute in the first instance did not deprive him of the right to have the law of his contract of employment enforced in the manner provided by law, and the insurance carrier, being credited with the amount it has paid under the provisions of the New Jersey statute, is not in law aggrieved.
The award should be affirmed.
Award unanimously affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts2
- State Highest Courts2
- State Appellate Courts6
Relies on it most ⓘ
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.