The appellants contend that there was no accidental injury within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that there is no substantial evidence to support the finding that the decedent's activities were sufficiently strenuous to require more than normal exertion and that such activities precipitated the coronary attack causing death. The decedent worked as a doorman at the employer's apartment building on the 4:00 P.M. to midnight...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
