Reinhold v. Town Of Irvington.
| Decision Date | 04 September 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 261.,261. |
| Citation | 134 N.J.L. 416,48 A.2d 641 |
| Parties | REINHOLD v. TOWN OF IRVINGTON. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the claim of Joseph H. Reinhold, employee, against the Town of Irvington for compensation for permanent injury. To review a determination of the Court of Common Pleas reversing a finding of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau and dismissing petitioner's claim petition, petitioner brings certiorari.
Writ dismissed.
January term, 1946, before DONGES, HEHER, and COLIE, JJ.
David Roskein, of Newark, and John A. Laird, of Hoboken, for prosecutor.
John J. Gaffey and Herman W. Kurtz, both of Newark, for defendant.
This writ of certiorari brings up for review a determination of the Essex County Court of Common Pleas in a workman's compensation case reversing a finding of the Bureau and dismissing the petitioner-prosecutor's claim petition.
The prosecutor was a firemen in the employ of the defendant, Town of Irvington, and on January 8, 1940, he suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by reason of which he was unable to work until sometime in the month of October, 1940, when he returned first to light duty and later to regular duty. During all these months he was off from work he was paid his full salary of $200 per month and made no claim for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
On November 15, 1942, he suffered another accidental injury in the course of the performance of his duties. He was unable to work and was again paid his full salary from the time of the accident down to January 1, 1944.
On November 26, 1943, he filed a petition for compensation, claiming permanent injury as a result of the first accident, and on May 22, 1944, when the matter came on for hearing, a further petition was filed based upon the second accident.
Following the filing of the first petition, the prosecutor, on December 23, 1943, applied to the town pension fund for retirement from active service because of disability which he ascribed to the two above-mentioned accidents, and he was placed on pension as of January 1, 1944.
The Bureau awarded temporary disability compensation for each accident, compensation for permanent disability as a result of the first accident to the extent of 20% of total, compensation for permanent disability as a result of the second accident to the extent of 30% of total, medical expenses and counsel fees. The Bureau further directed that the defendant was entitled to credit by reason of its payment to prosecutor of his salary during the periods he was not working, but that the receipt of his pension was no bar to a recovery by prosecutor in the form of compensation.
The primary question concerns the applicability and construction of two sections of the Compensation Act. R.S. 34:15-39, N.J.S.A., provides in part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
...we distinguished this situation from others: The clear distinction arises from the fact that in both the Reinhold [v. Town of Irvington, 134 N.J.L. 416, 48 A.2d 641 (Sup.1946) ] and the DeLorenzo [v. Board of Com'rs of City of Newark, 134 N.J.L. 7, 45 A.2d 686 (E & A 1948) ] cases the munic......
-
Pisapia v. City of Newark
...award for compensation, which brought the case squarely within the language of R.S. 34:15--43, N.J.S.A. and Reinhold v. Town of Irvington, 134 N.J.L. 416, 48 A.2d 641 (Sup.Ct.1946). In Pirher v. Bd. of Public Works of South River, supra, Pirher sought both compensation and retirement for th......
-
Hillman v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees Retirement System
...before he reaches 65 in order for him to qualify for benefits. In support of this contention respondent cites Reinhold v. Irvington, 134 N.J.Law 416, 48 A.2d 641 (Sup.Ct.1946); Flynn v. Union City, 30 N.J.Super. 467, 105 A.2d 34 (Cty.Ct.1954), aff'd, 32 N.J.Super. 518, 108 A.2d 629 (App.Div......
-
Detlefs v. Town of Westfield
...be summarized as follows: N.J.S.A. 34:15--43 bars Detlefs from all workmen's compensation benefits, citing Reinhold v. Town of Irvington, 134 N.J.L. 416, 48 A.2d 641 (Sup.Ct.1946). It is true that N.J.S.A. 34:15--43 was amended after the Reinhold case (L.1948, c. 269) to provide 'that such ......