Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Joseph F. Gardner v. Sinclair Refining Co.

227 F.2d 958

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1955-12-23
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. 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 *959 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 con-elusion. The judgment of district court will be affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Joseph F. Gardner v. Sinclair Refining Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
GARDNER v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO.,227 F.2d 958(3rd Cir. 1955)
Joseph F. GARDNER v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO., Appellant.
No. 11683.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued December 6, 1955.
Decided December 23, 1955.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Thomas J. Clary, Judge.
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.
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 thePage 959seaman 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.Page 1Page 1