From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tassel v. Basic Refractories Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 1926
216 App. Div. 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Summary

In Van Tassel v. Basic Refractories Corp. (216 App. Div. 774), the court said: "Obviously, being already totally disabled, he was incapable of being again totally disabled, and the award in question should not have been made. Any other view would result in the claimant's receiving from the same employer twice the maximum compensation prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Law."

Summary of this case from Matter of Wilkosz v. Symington Gould

Opinion

March, 1926.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.


The claimant, when the present award, as for total disability, was made, was receiving compensation from the same employer, as for a total disability, under a prior award for a prior accidental injury. Obviously, being already totally disabled, he was incapable of being again totally disabled, and the award in question should not have been made. Any other view would result in the claimant's receiving from the same employer twice the maximum compensation prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Law. As long as the first award stands we think the claimant will be entitled to no further award. The award should be reversed, and matter remitted to the State Industrial Board. All concur. Award reversed and matter remitted, with costs against the State Industrial Board to abide the event.


Summaries of

Tassel v. Basic Refractories Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 1926
216 App. Div. 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

In Van Tassel v. Basic Refractories Corp. (216 App. Div. 774), the court said: "Obviously, being already totally disabled, he was incapable of being again totally disabled, and the award in question should not have been made. Any other view would result in the claimant's receiving from the same employer twice the maximum compensation prescribed by the Workmen's Compensation Law."

Summary of this case from Matter of Wilkosz v. Symington Gould
Case details for

Tassel v. Basic Refractories Corporation

Case Details

Full title:Before STATE INDUSTRIAL BOARD, Respondent. HENRY VAN TASSEL, Respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1926

Citations

216 App. Div. 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Citing Cases

Walls v. Hodo Chevrolet Co.

The weight of authority in the states that have spoken to the question, when interpreting their statutes,…

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Bratton

"The weight of authority in the states that have spoken to the question, when interpreting their statutes,…