Case ID: ny_239/html/0540-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Claim of James Lawson, Respondent, against Wallace & Keeney et al., Appellants.
    
      Workmen’s compensation — notice — when failure to give notice of injury within prescribed time properly excused.
    
    
      Lawson v. Wallace & Keeney, 208 App. Div. 753, affirmed.
    (Argued October 2, 1924;
    decided October 24, 1924.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 28, 1924, unanimously affirming an award of the State Industrial Board made under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant while in the course of his employment was struck on the leg by a falling box in June. The resulting bruise seemed at first to yield to home remedies but having pain in the leg during August or September he consulted his family physician who treated him for rheumatism. Finally in January he was examined by a surgeon who found that an abscess had formed where the box struck the leg and it was finally found necessary to operate and remove a portion of the bone. No notice of the injury was given until December. The State Industrial Board held that the failure to give written notice of injury to the employer within the time prescribed by section 18 of the Compensation Law is hereby excused on the ground that inasmuch as claimant received an apparent trivial injury, the consequences of which could not have been imagined in a business where slight bumps and bruises were common occurrences of the day; and inasmuch as all the facts that could have been ascertained at the time were later disclosed and there was no indication for immediate medical attention; and inasmuch as the employer and insurance carrier, if they had written notice of the injury, could have done nothing which would have changed the result; and inasmuch as the employer' and insurance carrier were not put to any disadvantage by the lack of such notice, neither the employer nor insurance carrier were prejudiced by the lack of such notice.
    
      William Warren Dimmick for appellants.
    
      Carl Sherman, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken of counsel), for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.