In re Petrie

• Decision Date: 15 June 1915
• Citation: 215 N.Y. 335,109 N.E. 549
• Parties: In re PETRIE. In re ONEIDA STEEL PULLEY CO. In re UTICA MUT. COMPENSATION INS. CORPORATION.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

215 N.Y. 335

109 N.E. 549

In re PETRIE. In re ONEIDA STEEL PULLEY CO. In re UTICA MUT. COMPENSATION INS. CORPORATION.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 15, 1915.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Thomas Petrie, to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by the Onedia Steel Pulley Company, the employer, and the Utica Mutual Compensation Insurance Corporation, insurer. Compensation was awarded, the award affirmed by the Supreme Court (see 165 App.Div. 561, 151 N.Y. Supp. 307), and the employer and Insurance Company appeal. Affirmed.

Merwin K. Hart, of Utica, for appellants.

Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (Harold J. Hinman, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

HISCOCK, J.

This appeal presents to this court for the first time for construction provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law (chapter 816, Laws of 1913). No attack is made upon the constitutionality of the act. The provisions thus presented for construction are those covering compensation for the loss of a phalange of a finger.

While the claimant was in the employ of the appellant Oneida Steel Pulley Company, he met with an accident which, amongst other things, resulted in injury to and subsequent amputation of part of the first phalange of his third finger, and he thereafter filed a claim for compensation covering such injuries.

The evidence which was presented to the State Workmen's Compensation Commission variously described his injury as the “cutting off * * * the third finger about the middle of the nail,” and against “third finger cut off near the first joint or near root of nail.” The Commission found that the claimant's injury resulted in “the amputation of the third finger on the right hand near the first joint,” and that “in the amputation of the third finger about one-third of the bone of the distal phalange was cut off,” and on these findings an award was made as for the loss of the entire phalange of the finger.

Section 15 of the Compensation Law, which covers this case so far as concerns compensation for injuries, provides:

“The loss of the first phalange of the thumb or finger shall be considered to be equal to the loss of one-half of such thumb or finger, and compensation shall be one-half on the amount above specified (for the loss of a thumb or finger). The loss of more than one phalange shall be considered as the loss of the entire thumb of finger.”

There is also a general provision that “in all other cases in this class of disability (after those specifically enumerated, such as the loss of a phalange), the compensation shall be” at a certain rate fixed in said section.

Under these provisions it is argued by the...