Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Joseph F. Gardner v. Sinclair Refining Co., 11683_1 (1955)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 11683_1 Visitors: 36
Filed: Dec. 23, 1955
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 227 F.2d 958 Joseph F. GARDNER v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO., Appellant. No. 11683. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued Dec. 6, 1955. Decided Dec. 23, 1955. Joseph J. Murphy, Philadelphia, Pa., (Mark D. Alspach, John A. Friedrich, Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant. Milton M. Borowsky, Philadelphia, Pa., (Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee. Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judg
More

227 F.2d 958

Joseph F. GARDNER
v.
SINCLAIR REFINING CO., Appellant.

No. 11683.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 6, 1955.
Decided Dec. 23, 1955.

Joseph J. Murphy, Philadelphia, Pa., (Mark D. Alspach, John A. Friedrich, Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Milton M. Borowsky, Philadelphia, Pa., (Abraham E. Freedman, Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

In this maintenance and cure case appellant objects to a part of the award on the ground that the particular time it covers was a period during which the seaman refused to avail himself of hospital care and treatment. The trial court who saw and heard the seaman found that his failure to seek medical assistance on the specified occasion was not wilful and that his actions were not of such nature as to warrant a forfeiture of his right to maintenance and cure. The record bears out the correctness of this conclusion. $The judgment of district court will be affirmed. D.C., 129 F. Supp. 225.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer