Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS v. WILLARD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


November 13, 1950

SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS, Inc.,
v.
WILLARD, Deputy Commissioner

The opinion of the court was delivered by: FAKE

The issues here arise under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.

The claimant, one Jack Sconfienza, was injured on the 25th day of January 1942, while in the employ of Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc. It occurred while claimant was engaged in discharging a cargo of beans from the lighter, Regent, afloat in the North River.

 The record here shows that the Deputy Commissioner made certain findings bearing upon compensation to be made to the claimant. These findings resulted in an award of compensation which had been paid in full at a prior date, and insofar as the issues here are concerned, is mere surplusage. The so-called award further provided that the employer should also provide the claimant with necessary surgical and medical treatment, as long as the nature of the injury and the process of recovery may require. The basic question in this case is whether the plaintiff is liable for such additional medical treatment.

 It is argued that Sec. 13 of the act places the burden on the claimant of making his claim for such treatment within one year after the injury or last payment which claimant has failed to do.

 In Marshall v. Pletz, 317 U.S. 383, 63 S. Ct. 284, 289, 87 L. Ed. 348, after a study of certain pertinent provisions of the act, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that 'the terms 'payment' and 'compensation' used in § 13(a) (of the act) refer to the periodic money payments' only. It follows, therefore, that Sec. 13 cannot be read as a limitation against a claim for medical or surgical treatment as here under consideration.

 The order complained of is affirmed, and the complaint is dismissed.

19501113

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.