Harrison v. Curtiss-wright Corp...
| Decision Date | 06 November 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 221.,221. |
| Citation | 134 N.J.L. 563,49 A.2d 496 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Passaic County.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Thomas F. Harrison, compensation claimant, opposed by the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, employer. To review a judgment of the common pleas affirming a dismissal of the proceeding by the deputy commissioner, the claimant brings certiorari.
Judgment of common pleas affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
.
R.S. 34:15-12(x) calls for attendance of a licensed physician within twenty-four hours, as a basis of workman's compensation in a hernia case.
October term, 1946, before PARKER and DONGES, JJ.
Isadore Rabinowitz and Paul Rittenberg, both of Paterson, for prosecutor.
John W. Taylor, of Newark, for respondent.
This is a workman's compensation case of the ‘hernia’ class. The deputy commissioner found as a fact, that there was no ‘such physical distress that the attendance of a licensed physician was required within twenty-four hours after the occurrence of the hernia.’ R.S. 34:15-12x, N.J.S.A. Accordingly, he dismissed the petition. On appeal to the Common Pleas, that court affirmed the dismissal, but on the ground that petitioner failed to comply with the fifth requirement of the ‘hernia’ statute, that ‘there was such physical distress that the attendance of a licensed physician was' required within twenty-four hours after the occurrence of the ‘hernia;’ citing and relying on Black v. De Vries, 133 N.J.L. 368, 44 A.2d 386, as directly in point. That case expressly holds that the word ‘required’ in the act means more than ‘needed’ or ‘necessary’ and connotes an actual attendance by the physician. To quote the concluding language of the opinion, ‘the statute under consideration calls for attendance by a licensed physician within twenty-four hours,’ and does not refer to mere need of such attendance, or even a futile request therefor.
In this case, as in many others, there was a regular plant physician, but he was not available at the time. But that fact does not help the petitioner. Comparatively few employers have a staff physician on duty at the plant. The gist of the statutory requirement is prompt resort by the injured party to some licensed physician for diagnosis and treatment. That was not done, and for this reason the judgment of the Pleas will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Bishop
...jurisdictions it has been held not to mean necessary or indispensable, but rather that which is appropriate. Harrison v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 134 N.J.L. 563, 49 A.2d 496. It imports that which is sufficient to prompt one suffering from the disease, malady or infirmity to seek medical aid o......
-
Giresi v. Okonite Co.
...of the Supreme Court in Black v. DeVries, 133 N.J.L. 368, 44 A.2d 386 (since followed by the same court in Harrison v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 49 A.2d 496, not yet reported [in State Report]), unanswerable. On the fact of the record before us, this is a genuine and meritorious instance ......
- Deputy Dir. v. Roberson, 251.
-
Harrison v. Curtiss-wright Corp.., 17.
...and Paul Rittenberg, all of Paterson, for appellant. John W. Taylor, of Newark, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The judgment, 134 N.J.L. 563, 49 A.2d 496, under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court. For affirman......