Rotino v. J. P. Scanlon, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 7.,7. |
| Citation | 19 A.2d 777,126 N.J.L. 419 |
| Parties | ROTINO v. J. P. SCANLON, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Rosario Rotino, compensation claimant, opposed by J. P. Scanlon, Incorporated, employer, for a larger compensation because of alleged increased permanent disability. From a judgment of the Supreme Court in certiorari, 125 N.J.L. 227, 15 A.2d 336, 752, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, which had affirmed a dismissal of claimant's petition by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, the claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
Nathan Baker, of Hoboken (Edwin J. O'Brien, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutor-appellant.
Charles J. Gormley, of Jersey City (Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
This is an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment in certiorari affirming a judgment in the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas which in turn had affirmed the action of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau dismissing a petition for further compensation because of alleged increased permanent disability. The opinion of the Supreme Court (reported in 125 N.J.L. 227, 15 A.2d 336, 752) clearly points out that the question involved was one of fact, i. e., whether there had been an increase in disability after the award to the petitioner, chargeable to the accident upon which the original award was made. Both the Bureau and the Court of Common Pleas decided against the prosecutor's claim that the increase in disability was due to the accidental injury and held that the increased disability was a result of the natural progress of the pre-existing condition and that the workman had been compensated in full for any disability resulting from the accident.
In determining the issue presented by the petition based on alleged increased disability the referee determined the fact as follows: "Considering the pre-existing condition of osteo arthritis, which in itself is progressive in nature, as well as the facts relating to the accident, I am of the opinion that any increase in disability now suffered by the petitioner is due to the natural progress of the pre-existing condition and that be has been fully compensated for any disability resulting from the accident." The judge in the Common Pleas Court came to the same conclusion.
It is argued that the judge in the Pleas erred in affirming the Bureau because he proceeded to his conclusion on assumptions that were inaccurate and, further, that he had an erroneous view of the law of the case. We are not called upon to go into these questions. The appeal here is from the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court found the fact independently of the two tribunals that had previously considered the case. It is its duty to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Everson v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Ewing Tp.
-
Reis v. Breeze Corps., Inc., 248.
...it must be, our independent examination and appraisal of the testimony which moves us to our conclusion, Rotino v. J. P. Scanlon, Inc., 126 N.J.L. 419, 19 A.2d 777; Stetser v. American Stores Co., 124 N.J.L. 228, 11 A.2d 51; Beerman v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 123 N.J.L. 479, 9......
-
Mixon v. Kalman.
...review the facts as well as the law in compensation cases. Reis v. Breeze Corp., Inc., 129 N.J.L. 138, 28 A.2d 304; Rotino v. J. P. Scanlon, Inc., 126 N.J.L. 419, 19 A.2d 777. The petitioner has the burden of proving by the weight of the evidence that this death resulted from an accident wh......
-
Breheny v. Essex County
...Comparison is the yard stick of admeasurement. See, Rotino v. P. J. Scanlon, Inc., 125 N.J.L. 227, 228, 15 A.2d 336, 752, affirmed 126 N.J.L. 419, 19 A.2d 777. What was the nature and extent, or condition and ability, of petitioner at the time (March 15, 1940) of the original award of 40% o......