From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Welscher v. F.s&sM. Schaefer Brewing Co.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department
Oct 6, 1955
286 AD 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)

Opinion


286 A.D. 1045 144 N.Y.S.2d 758 Claim of Joseph WELSCHER, Respondent, v. F.s&sM. SCHAEFER BREWING COMPANY and Interboro Mutual Indemnity Company, Appellants, and J. T. Trommer Brewing Company, Respondent. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondents. Supreme Court of New York, Third Department October 6, 1955.

         Bernard F. Farley, New York City, for appellants.

         Phillipss&s Kalb, New York City, for claimant-respondent.

         Jacob K. Javits, Atty. Gen., for respondent, Workmen's Compensation Board (Roy Wiedersum, Daniel Polansky, Asst. Attys. Gen., for counsel).

         Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HALPERN and ZELLER, JJ.

         PER CURIAM.

         Appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a decision and award made by the Workmen's Compensation Board which found claimant suffering a permanent partial disability due to a disease or condition known as Dupuytren's contracture, and awarded compensation against the employer F.s&sM. Schaefer Brewing Company.

         Respondents urge first that the appeal should be dismissed because appellants failed to appeal from a decision of the Board dated November 23, 1954, which fixed the date of disablement as of November 3, 1950. Appellants appealed from a decision of the Board dated April 6, 1954 which fixed the date of disablement as of April 26, 1951. After the appeal had been taken, and while it was pending in this court, the Board modified its decision as indicated by changing the date of disablement but made no motion to dismiss the appeal. The appeal therefore must be deemed to have been properly taken and brings up for review the intermediate decision and the award based on it. Piekut v. Philip Fleischer, Inc., 276 A.D. 702, 97 N.Y.S.2d 767.

         On the merits we think the award should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Board for further proof or such action as may be advised.

         The history of claimant's employment is as follows: He was employed as a brewery worker by the Schaefer Brewing Company from April 7, 1948 to November 3, 1950, and his duties required him to handle barrels, lift them and stack them. From November 3, 1950 to December 7, 1950 he did not work. On December 7, 1950 he went to work for the Trommer Brewing Company. He continued to work there and was so working on March 12, 1951 when the Trommer Brewing Company was sold to Piels, another company in the same business. Claimant continued to work during all of 1951 and then was laid off because business had slowed down.

         On April 26, 1951 claimant was seen by a physician who found him suffering from Dupuytren's contracture of both hands, nevertheless he continued to work until the end of that year. Claimant told his physician that he had noticed 'cords' in his hands in April of 1950. The Board found that the disease or condition of Dupuytren's contracture had its inception within 12 months previous to the date of disablement. It also found that the date of disablement was November 3, 1950. There is no substantial evidence in the record to sustain the latter finding. It is true that claimant left the employment of the Schaefer Brewing Company on November 3, 1950 but nowhere in the record is there any claim on his part that he left such employment because he was disabled, nor is there any medical proof that he was disabled on that date. It is true that the Board may fix the date of disablement but it may not do so arbitrarily and without some proof to sustain its finding.

         Moreover the finding that the disease was initiated with 12 months previous to November 3, 1950 must depend upon the testimony of Dr. Sherman, who first saw claimant on April 26, 1951. In one place in the record this physician gave as his opinion that the inception of the disease which he found claimant suffering from was in April, 1950. This opinion was based upon the history which claimant gave him that he first noticed the appearance of 'cords' in his hands in 1950. Later on this same physician conceded that the condition was initiated prior to April 1950. Testimony of this character is not of sufficient substance to support a finding that claimant contracted the disease in April 1950.

         Award reversed, with costs to appellant against the Workmen's Compensation Board, and the matter remitted to the Board for further proof or such action as it may be advised.

Summaries of

Welscher v. F.s&sM. Schaefer Brewing Co.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department
Oct 6, 1955
286 AD 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)
Case details for

Welscher v. F.s&sM. Schaefer Brewing Co.

Case Details

Full title:Welscher v. F.s&sM. Schaefer Brewing Co.

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1955

Citations

286 AD 1045 (N.Y. App. Div. 1955)
144 N.Y.S.2d 758