PAGE *94 O'Neil v. Carley Heater Co., S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 314, Oct. 20, 1915; 173 App. 388 ...*175 Parsons v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 167 App. Div. 536, May 5, 1915.. · App. Div. —, Nov. 29, 1916... Paulson v. Schlumbohm, S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 376, July 22, 1915.. 255 265 App. *92 248 Peers v. DeCarion & Co., S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 425, Oct. 27, 1915...... Pensabene v. Auditore Co., 78 Misc. 538, Dec., 1912; 155 App. Div., Feb. 21, 1913... Petcheck v. Degnon Contracting Co., S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 394, Dec. 28, 1915.... 254 Petrie, Matter of, 165 App. Div. 561, Jan. 6, 1915; 215 N. Y. 335, June 15, 1915; 218 N. Y. 116, June 16, 1916.. .57, *287, *290, 297, *405 Picol v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., S. D. R., vol. 4, p. 420, June 25, 1915; 172 App. Div. 913, Jan., 1916..... Plass v. Central New England R. R. Co., S. D. R., vol. 4, p. 331, Feb. 20, 1915; 169 App. Div. 826, Nov. 10, 1915.. 174 .*205, 254, 265 Podkownski v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 17 App. Div. 918, Jan., 1916.. 296 Post v. Burger & Gohlke, 168 App. Div. 403, May 7, 1915; 216 N. Y. 544, Jan. 11, 1916.. .153, 154, 156, *236, *244 Potts v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., S. D. R., vol. 4, p. 421, June 25, 1915; 172 App. Div. 918, Jan., 1916.. 174 Powley v. Vivian & Co., S. D. R., vol. 3, p. 366, Feb. 8, 1915; 169 App. Div. 170, July 1, 1915...... .*70, 249, 339, 395 Praino v. Peloso, 171 App. Div. 963, Nov. 11, 1915.. .195, 264 333 Pritz v. Beaumont Co., Files of Commission, Claim No. 39670; 170 App. Div. 943, Sept., 1915..... 156 Putnam v. Murray, S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 355, Dec. 6, 1915; vol. 7, p. 407, Feb. *198, 255 174 Rachlin v. Danziger Paint Co., Files of Commission, Claim No. 54764, June 30, 1915... 50 365 Ramsey v. Fairbanks-Morse & Co., 171 App. Div. 959, Nov. 10, 1915.. Rheinwald v. Builders' Brick & Supply Co., S. D. R., vol. 1, p. 417, Sept.-Oct., 1914; 168 App. Div. 425, May 14, 1915; S. D. R., vol. 7, p. 440, Feb. 16, 1916; 174 App. Div. 935, Sept. 13, 1916... .50, 57, *59, 134, 142, 334, 395, 402 Rhyner v. Hueber Building Co., 171 App. Div. 56, Jan. 5, 1916.......333, *375, 399 Rist v. Larkin & Sangster, S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 381, July 28, 1915; 171 App. Div. 71, Jan. 5, 1916... *253, 333, 388 Rockwell v. Lewis, 168 App. Div. 674, July 1, 1915; 218 N. Y. 692, May 30, 1916..... PAGE .276, *281 341 Rodgers v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., S. D. R., vol. 7, p. 393, Jan. 26, 1916. 264 280 174 274 Schweitzer v. Hamburg-American Line, 78 Misc. 448, Dec., 1912; 149 App. Div. 900, Mar. 29, 1912..... 248 Shanahan v. Monarch Engineering Co., 92 Misc. 466, Dec., 1915; 172 App. Div. 221, April 19, 1916; 219 N. Y. 469, Dec. 29, 1916..38, 55, 110, 298, *315, *320, *321 Shea v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 171 App. Div. 961, Nov., 1915.... 174 109 Shinnick v. Clover Farms Co., 90 Misc. 1, April, 1915; 169 App. Div. 236, July 9, 1915..... .55, 110, *298, *299 Sickles v. Ballston Refrigerating Storage Co., S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 382, July 28, 1915; 171 App. Div. 108, Jan. 5, 1916.. *143 Skoczlois v. Vinocur, S. D. R., vol. 7, p. 443, Feb. 17, 1916.. 359 App. Div. Sloat v. Rochester Taxicab Co., Files of Commission, S. D. R., vol. 8, p. 498, May 12, 1916; 334 Smart v. Cruss Kemper Co., Files of Commission, Claim No. 67003.. 50 Smith v. Price, S. D. R., vol. 1, p. 421, Oct. 21, 1914; 168 App. Div. 421, May 5, 1915.. .*186 Sokol v. Clyde Steamship Co., S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 339, Nov. 24, 1915... 82 .184, 264 .154, *244 Staab v. American Malting Co., S. D. R., vol. 7, p. 374, Jan. 13, 1916. 256 .*374 255 109 Stevens v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., S. D. R., vol. 3, p. 378, Feb. 24, 1915; 171 App. Div. 961, Nov., 1915... 174 Strobl v. Langsdorf & Co., Files of Commission, Claim No. 7281, Sept. 27, and Oct. 19, 1915... 279 Sullivan v. Industrial Engineering Co., S. D. R., vol. 6, p. 401, Dec. 29, 1915; 173 App. Div. 65, May 3, 1916... .116, *250 Sullivan v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., S. D. R., vol. 4, p. 406, June 7, 1915; 172 App. Div. 913, Jan., 1916..... 174 Surfass v. American LaFrance Fire Engine Co., Files of Commission, Claim No. 55428... 49 PAGE Tirre v. Bush Terminal Co., S. D. R., vol. 5, p. 427, Oct. 27, 1915; 172 App. Div. .266, 314, *376 *104, 262 Tracy v. DeLaval Separator Co., S. D. R., vol. 7, p. 385, Jan. 18, 1916. 50 308 256 *118 .154, *244, 248 U. S. F. & G. Co. v. N. Y. Railways Co., 93 Misc. 118, Jan., 1916. *303 181 Walker v. Clyde Steamship Co., 167 App. Div. 945, Mar., 1915; 215 N. Y. 529, July 13, 1915....... ..21, *29, 160, 181 Walz v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., 170 App. Div. 6, Nov. 10, 1915.. .*312 Wasilewski v. Warner Sugar Refining Co., 87 Misc. 156, Oct., 1914... Waters v. Taylor Co., 170 App. Div. 942, Sept. 14, 1915; 218 N. Y. 248, May 12, 1916.. 248 *218 174 *106, *107, 262, *404 Welch v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 170 App. Div. 926, July, 1915.. ..21, 56, 159, 163, *168 *124 App. Div., Dec. 29, 1916...... 286 Woodcock v. Walker, 170 App. Div. 4, Nov. 10, 1915.. *308 .126, *336 Wozneak v. Buffalo Gas Co., App. Div. Nov. 15, 1916.. 327 Yume v. Knickerbocker Portland Cement Co., S. D. R., vol. 3, p. 353, Jan. 20, 1915; 169 App. Div. 905, May, 1915; 216 N. Y., 653, Oct. 19, 1915... Ziegler v. Cassidy's Sons, S. D. R., vol. 4, Mar. 30, 1915; 171 App. Div. 959, INTRODUCTION The Workmen's Compensation Law of New York had been in effect two years on the first of July, 1916. During the first eleven months of its operation it was administered by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, an independent body created by L. 1913, ch. 816, as amended and re-enacted by L. 1914, ch. 41. May 22, 1915, under L. 1915, ch. 674, the State Industrial Commission took over the functions of the Workmen's Compensation Commission. Thenceforward, for a year and more, the Bureau of Workmen's Compensation in the Department of Labor has been administering the law. In addition to L. 1914, ch. 41, and L. 1915, ch. 674, five other acts have amended the Workmen's Compensation Law; namely, L. 1914, ch. 316; L. 1915, chs. 167, 168, 615; and L. 1916, ch. 622. Altogether the number of claims and agreements for the first eighteen months of the law's operation, July 1, 1914, to January 1, 1916, was more than sixty thousand. Of this vast number less. than three hundred had been appealed from the Commission to the courts up to the end of 1915. The proportion of agreement cases to claim cases is in the ratio of seventy to thirty. All appeals lie first to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Department, sitting at Albany, and thence to the Court of Appeals.* Compensation cases have precedence over all other civil cases. Prior to July 1, 1916, the Appellate Division had handed down about one hundred and thirty-five, and the Court of Appeals about thirty, compensation decisions. Some ten other cases relative to compensation had been the subject of Supreme Court decisions. The important cases involving the constitutionality of the Workmen's Compensation Law have been carried from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States. There they have been argued and await decision. The following presentation of the court decisions and commission rulings reveals the fact that by far the greater part of the attention and time demanded of the courts and the commission. For the composition of the two courts see below, p. 398. has been involved by the problems of coverage. The cases determining the constitutionality of the act have been, of course, of overshadowing importance. Since the law of compensation is a new and great departure, it has been thought best to give the full texts of the decisions both of the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division in all cases. This Bulletin can at best present only a transitory view of workmen's compensation in New York. The process of interpretation is in an intermediate stage. The decisions here reproduced are likely to be modified or may be entirely reversed by further decisions of the near future. A second series of decisions may be expected to follow the radical and far-reaching law of 1916, generally amending the Workmen's Compensation Law. The new act, which went into effect June 1, 1916, is in large part a measure originating with the State Industrial Commission, based upon the administrative experience of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, and designed to clear up the very doubts and cure the very defects of the Workmen's Compensation Law that the court decisions here given made conspicuous. Thus, its provision for cases of disfigurement nullifies the effect of Shinnick v. Clover Farms Co. as a precedent; its provision for compensation of public employees notwithstanding the "pecuniary gain" clause offsets Allen v. State of New York; and its amendments expressly defining the right of appeal resolve the doubts in the Court of Appeals' refusal to hear Rheinwald v. Builders' Brick and Supply Co.* These are but three of a score of decisions that have been nullified, modified or re-enforced as precedents by the amendatory law of 1916. In the proper place, in connection with each decision so affected, attention is hereafter called to the corresponding legislative amendment. The daily papers of New York City and Albany afford the earliest notices of current court decisions. The State Department Reports of New York, issued semi-monthly by the Miscellaneous Reporter's office since October 1, 1914, give the full texts of many of the State Industrial Commission's rulings and also the opinions of the Attorney-General on the Workmen's Compensation Law. For these decisions see pp. 59, 131, 298 following. The Shinnick decision is met by amendment of Workmen's Compen ation Law, § 15, subd. 3; the Allen decision by the addition of new group 43 to 2; and the Rheinwald dismsisal by amendment of § 23. |