Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

138 Misc. 380

Siegal v. Strauss

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1930-11-19

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1941

2 federal appellate ·

Relies on Frant v. Robert Cobban & Son, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-11-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The provisions of section 13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (as amd. by Laws of 1927, chap. 553) have no application to an action at law by a physician to recover from the employer the agreed price for services rendered to an employee at the employer’s request. (See Frant v. Cobban & Son, Inc., 133 Misc. 433; affd., 226 App. Div. 796.)

¶2There was no proof to establish an agreement by plaintiff to conform to the Workmen’s Compensation Law, nor was there any plea of election of remedies. It was error, therefore, to receive evidence concerning the requirements of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and of plaintiff’s failure to comply therewith and to charge the jury with respect thereto.

¶3Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

¶4All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Callahan, JJ.

/138/misc/380 · .json · Public domain