TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Claim of Gaik v. National Aniline Division

In the Matter of the Claim of Leo Gaik, against National Aniline Division, Workmen's Compensation Board

Claim of Gaik v. Nat'l Aniline Div., 5 A.D.2d 1039 (1958)
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
April 28, 1958
Judges
Bergan, Foster, Goon, Herlihy, Reynolds
Citations
5 A.D.2d 1039173 N.Y.S.2d 4091958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6202

Opinion of the Court

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

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which disallowed his claim for compensation, with findings of no accident and no causal relation. Claimant was employed as a taxicab driver, and his hours of work were usually from three o’clock in the afternoon until about three o’clock of the next morning. At about ten o’clock in the evening of the day of the alleged accident he collapsed and was taken to a hospital, where his condition was diagnosed as a coronary occlusion myocardial infarction. His claim that this heart attack was accidental in nature was based upon the statement that his work prior to the attack was more arduous than usual, particularly due to the fact that he had to carry some luggage into the Pennsylvania Railroad Station. His testimony in this regard was challenged and contradicted by his own trip card which indicated that he made no trip to the Pennsylvania Railroad Station on the day in question. Thus the credibility of claimant was involved and of course that issue was for the board to resolve. There is also medical testimony which negatives causal relation and it was equally within the power of the board to accept or reject this testimony. On the whole record only questions of fact were involved and we are bound by the decision of the board in regard thereto. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Present—Foster, P. J., Bergan, Goon, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1969: 11975: 21977: 11978: 21992: 11996: 11998: 119692026peak 1975 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Epler v. North American Rockwell Corp.393 A.2d 1163 (Pa. 1978) · Concurrence
  2. Johnson v. Holdrege Medical Clinic541 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 1996)
  3. Knoop v. Industrial Commission589 P.2d 1325 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)
  4. Copeland v. Leaf, Inc.829 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. 1992)
  5. Claim of Husted v. Seneca Steel Service, Inc.50 A.D.2d 76 (1975) · Dissent
  6. Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson373 A.2d 613 (Md. 1977)

Most recent

  1. McCurry v. Container Corp. of America982 S.W.2d 841 (Tenn. 1998)
  2. Johnson v. Holdrege Medical Clinic541 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 1996)
  3. Copeland v. Leaf, Inc.829 S.W.2d 140 (Tenn. 1992)
  4. Knoop v. Industrial Commission589 P.2d 1325 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)
  5. Epler v. North American Rockwell Corp.393 A.2d 1163 (Pa. 1978) · Concurrence
  6. Wiley Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson373 A.2d 613 (Md. 1977)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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