TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Claim of Tarter v. Pullman Co.

In the Matter of the Claim of Benjamin F. Tarter, against Pullman Company, Workmen's Compensation Board

Claim of Tarter v. Pullman Co., 274 A.D. 863 (1948)
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
September 22, 1948
Citations
274 A.D. 86381 N.Y.S.2d 7311948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3717

Opinion of the Court

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

Appeal by a self-insured employer from .a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which confirmed a referee’s award of disability compensation to claimant. Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in September, 1945, and was awarded and paid compensation until he returned to work. With the exception of the time he was unable to work due to injuries sustained in a subsequent and unrelated accident (for which he was fully compensated) he continued in his employment without loss of earnings until March 18, 1947, when he left it and has since been unemployed. There is evidence that when he quit employment he was suffering from a residuum of the back injury of September, 1945, and that such was of a partial disabling nature; that he left his employment partly on account thereof and also because of a diseased heart condition which for aught that appears was wholly unrelated to any accidental injury. There was evidence that the residuum of claimant’s back injury partially disabled him. He was awarded compensation under then effective subdivision 6 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law at the minimum rate in the absence of evidence of greater reduced earnings. There being evidence of partial disability caused by the accident of September, 1945, the award made was allowable without proof of actual reduced earning capacity. (Matter of Bostello v. Kennedy Constr. Co., 263 App. Div. 1031 .) Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — • Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and Russell, JJ. [See post, p. 949.]

How later courts describe this case

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

1963: 219632026peak 1963 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Claim of Glickman v. Ace Equipment Co.18 A.D.2d 946 (1963)
  2. Claim of Blum v. Jo-Mar Sportswear Co.19 A.D.2d 440 (1963)

Most recent

  1. Claim of Blum v. Jo-Mar Sportswear Co.19 A.D.2d 440 (1963)
  2. Claim of Glickman v. Ace Equipment Co.18 A.D.2d 946 (1963)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Claim of Bostello v. Kennedy Constr. Co., 263 A.D. 1031 (1942) 1

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