TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Claim of Robinson v. Hamilton Avenue Hospital

In the Matter of the Claim of Luegussie Robinson v. Hamilton Avenue Hospital, Workmen's Compensation Board

Claim of Robinson v. Hamilton Ave. Hosp., 34 A.D.2d 1059 (1970)
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
June 30, 1970
Judges
Reynolds
Citations
34 A.D.2d 1059312 N.Y.S.2d 7831970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4227

Opinion of the Court — Reynolds

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance *1060 carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the grounds that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that claimant sustained a compensable accidental injury and that section 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law did not bar her claim. The board found that section 28 was not a bar in the instant controversy since there had been an advance payment of compensation made by the employer through Dr. Heins, the owner of a one-half interest in the employer-hospital, who, with knowledge of claimant’s accident shortly after it occurred, treated her for injuries resulting from said accident. Concededly, Dr. Heins treated claimant for her injuries and we must accept the board’s conclusion that claimant told Dr. Heins as to the work connected source of her difficulties. However, to lift the bar of section 28 the medical services must have been performed in a manner to imply an acknowledgement or recognition of liability (Matter of Schmitt v. Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity House, 33 A D 2d 1082), and such is not established to be the case on the instant record. Rather, the only possible conclusion from the evidence is that Dr. Heins, whatever his interest in the employer, had been treating claimant regularly as a private patient for chronic back trouble since 1956 and that the services rendered in connection with the incident herein involved were performed solely as a medical practitioner treating a private patient from whom he expected compensation directly for his services' (in fact subsequently he brought an action to recover payment for those services) and not as a representative of the employer. Accordingly, we find section 28 applicable and the claim must, therefore, be dismissed. We pass on no other issues raised. Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 11979: 119742026peak 1974 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Williams v. Safeway Stores525 P.2d 1087 (Alaska 1974)
  2. Quinn v. State70 A.D.2d 670 (1979)

Most recent

  1. Quinn v. State70 A.D.2d 670 (1979)
  2. Williams v. Safeway Stores525 P.2d 1087 (Alaska 1974)

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