Case ID: misc_185/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Memorandum Per Curiam.\n     Shientag, J. (concurring).", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lewis J. Siegal, Appellant, v. Penn Our Restaurant Corporation, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    July 9, 1945.
    
      
      Alvin L. Rabinowils for appellant.
    
      Walter L. Qlenney for respondent.
   Memorandum Per Curiam.

There is no defense to the action. Plaintiff furnished the notice required by subdivision (4) of section 13-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the defendant in failing to file objections under section 13-g of the Act waived arbitration and admitted the amount claimed by the plaintiff to be the fair value of his services.

The orders should be reversed, with $10 costs, plaintiff’s motion granted and defendant’s motion denied,

Shientag, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result. An insurance carrier has the right under section 13-g of the Workmen’s Compensation Law,, to file objections to the bill of a physician and to demand arbitration. This the carrier (which is ultimately obligated to make the payment) may do as the agent of the insured employer. The employer, however, may repudiate the action taken by the carrier. The employer has done so in this case by an unequivocal statement that it approved the bill rendered by the physician and did not authorize the insurance carrier to object thereto.

Hammer and Eder, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam; Shientag, J., concurs in result, in memorandum.

Orders reversed, etc.