DeCroix v. N. Sumergrade & Sons
| Decision Date | 20 February 1964 |
| Citation | 20 A.D.2d 735,246 N.Y.S.2d 852 |
| Parties | Peter DeCROIX, Respondent, v. N. SUMERGRADE & SONS et al., Appellants. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joseph M. Soviero, New York City, for appellants.
Alexander A. Suess, New York City, for claimant-respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. , for Workmen's Compensation Board.
Before GIBSON, P. J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, TAYLOR and AULISI, JJ.
The board awarded to claimant the cost of transportation to and from work by means of his own automobile, as 'necessary for the claimant's physical support', upon medical testimony that following healed leg fractures claimant was left with limitation of motion at the ankle, traumatic arthritis of the ankle and an ankle ulcer, and that claimant's previous mode of transportation by subway was precarious in that the stairs and crowds subjected him to risk of irreparable injury. In Matter of Carniato v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 7 A.D.2d 328, p. 329, 183 N.Y.S.2d 298, p. 299, this court, per Bergan, J., flatly held: 'Provision for use of an automobile to go to work does not come within the scope of Workmen's Compensation Law, § 13, requiring payments for The factual distinctions which the board would draw between the Carniato case and this cannot alter the legal principle thus expounded, with the result of constituting a motor vehicle a medical 'apparatus' or 'device', which clearly it is not.
Decision reversed and claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen's Compensation Board.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R & T Const. Co. v. Judge
...and, generally, reflect that that interpretation is approached from a narrow perspective. See e.g. DeCroix v. Sumergrade and Sons, 20 A.D.2d 735, 246 N.Y.S.2d 852 (3 Dept.1964) where claimant fractured his leg resulting in limitation of his motion at the ankle, traumatic arthritis of the an......
-
R & T Const. Co. v. Judge
...Covers v. DeLucia, 533 So.2d 862 (Fla.App.1988); Kranis v. Trunz, 91 A.D.2d 765, 458 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1982); DeCroix v. N. Sumergrade & Sons, 20 A.D.2d 735, 246 N.Y.S.2d 852 (1964); Carniato v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 7 A.D.2d 328, 183 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1959); McDonald v. Brunswick Elec. Membership C......
-
City of Guntersville v. Bishop
...under the workers' compensation law (e.g., Kranis v. Trunz, Inc., 91 A.D.2d 765, 458 N.Y.S.2d 10 (1982); Decroix v. N. Sumergrade & Sons, 20 A.D.2d 735, 246 N.Y.S.2d 852 (1964)). We also note that the Workers' Compensation Act of West Virginia is similar to the Alabama Act. In Crouch v. Wes......
-
Zalenski v. Crucible Steel, Inc.
...Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes, § 239). The devices particularly mentioned are medical aids (see Matter of De Croix v. Sumergrade & Sons, 20 A.D.2d 735, 246 N.Y.S.2d 852; Matter of Carniato v. Wheeler Corp., 7 A.D.2d 328, 183 N.Y.S.2d 298). A hearing aid fits nicely within the cocoon o......