Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 N.J. Misc. 323

Kiczko v. Baylis Co.

New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau · decided 1942-07-08

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1942-07-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1990

5 state decisions

20194219501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1It appearing from the stipulations and testimony adduced before me as follows:

¶2That petitioner was employed by respondent at wages of $18 per week which entitled him to a compensation rate of $12 per week.

¶3That on the 30tli day of April, 1941, his left middle and ring fingers were caught in a machine, resulting in an amputation of the tips. Dae notice of said accident was given to the respondent.

¶4The distal phalanx of the second finger was removed and a portion of the distal phalanx of the third finger was also removed leaving a small segment thereof.

¶5Despondent voluntarily paid compensation for temporary disability at said rate for a period of two weeks or $24 and compensation amounting to 50 per cent, of each of the second and third fingers or a total of 25 weeks at said compensation rate or $300.

¶6*324Ht Hí H* ❖ Hs s£ Hí

¶7From the X-rays it appears that a small section of the second phalanx of the second finger is missing as the result of said accident.

¶8Hi :',i Hí $ Hi $ Hi

¶9Compensation in this case ■ is determined under B. 8. 34:15-121; N. J. S. A. 34:15-121 under the terms of which “The loss of any portion of the thumb or any finger between the terminal joint and the end thereof shall be compensated for a like proportion of the period of time prescribed for the loss of the first phalange of such member.” Compensation therefore is not dependent upon the evidence of loss of efficiency, but upon whether there has been the loss of any portion of the finger between the terminal joint and the end thereof. Here there has been the loss of such a portion of the finger.

¶10It is therefore … ordered the judgment final be entered in favor of petitioner.

¶11H: ‘ :j« Hí . ❖ H* H* H*

¶12Harry S. Medinets,

¶13Deputy Commissioner.

/20/njmisc/323 · .json · Public domain