From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Claim of Ramsey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 7, 1952
279 App. Div. 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Opinion

May 7, 1952.

Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Board.

Present — Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.


The evidence supports the board's finding that the place of claimant's employment and the circumstances and conditions thereof caused her exposure to flour dust which resulted in the affliction which disabled her. A feature of claimant's employment was its fixed location which brought about the exposure as a natural and unavoidable risk and incident of her employment. This we think brought the claim within the coverage of the statute. ( Matter of Eckert v. Commander Larabee Mfg. Co., 278 App. Div. 623. ) Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board.


Summaries of

Claim of Ramsey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 7, 1952
279 App. Div. 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)
Case details for

Claim of Ramsey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of MARY RAMSEY, Respondent, against GREAT…

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

Date published: May 7, 1952

Citations

279 App. Div. 1106 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)