Stevens v. Button Corp. of Am.

Decision Date25 September 1942
Citation28 A.2d 273,20 N.J.Misc. 393
PartiesSTEVENS v. BUTTON CORPORATION OF AMERICA et al.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by Joseph Stevens, claimant, opposed by the Button Corporation of America, employer, and the New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, insurer.

Petition dismissed.

David Roskein, of Newark (Mortimer Wald, of Newark, of counsel), for petitioner.

George E. Meredith, of Trenton, for respondent.

MEDINETS, Deputy Commissioner.

From the pleadings and the testimony adduced the petitioner can recover on only one of two theories, that he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or that he suffered a compensable occupational disease as defined in R.S. 34:15-31, N.J.S.A. 34:15-31. The latter theory I do not discuss because there is no suggestion in the evidence that the petitioner suffered a compensable occupational disease.

The testimony is undisputed and indicates that the petitioner in the course of his work was required to dump baskets of buttons which had been immersed in a tank filled with a liquid. In the process of dumping the basket filled with wet buttons the liquid got on petitioner's arms and legs. This was a continuous process, and the petitioner was exposed to this soaking of his body and his clothes from 7:30 A. M. to 12 A. M. daily.

It further appears that after doing this work for about a month the petitioner noticed that he had a rash on his arms and on his legs. He testified that he sought medical treatment, and then was away from work for a period of time because of a strike. During this interval the rash seemed to improve, but on resuming his work at the end of the strike the condition broke out all over again.

The petitioner called Dr. Leon Lewis, who testified that he examined the petitioner and found that he was suffering from a fungus infection of the upper sternum with scaling areas and crustlike scars over the legs. His diagnosis of the case was dermatitis venenata and a sensitivity due to exposure to formaldehyde. The doctor testified that in his opinion this condition could not be brought about by one contact, but was the result of continuous exposure to the liquid.

No further testimony was adduced and the respondent by its attorney moved for a dismissal of the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not sustain the burden of proving that he suffers from a compensable occupational disease or a condition resulting from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

I am satisfied from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT