Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation, 209 F.2d 957, 3rd Cir. (1954)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in a case regarding maintenance and cure owed to an injured seaman. The district court found that the maximum date of recovery from the seaman's injury was September 8, 1946, and that the amount owed for maintenance and cure was $575. It also found there was no proof that self-administered massage and heat treatments were curative in nature. The appellate court determined the district court's findings were justified based on substantial evidence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1954-02-01 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 209 F.2d 957 Docket: 11164_1

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in a case regarding maintenance and cure owed to an injured seaman. The district court found that the maximum date of recovery from the seaman's injury was September 8, 1946, and that the amount owed for maintenance and cure was $575. It also found there was no proof that self-administered massage and heat treatments were curative in nature. The appellate court determined the district court's findings were justified based on substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views1 page

    Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corporation, 209 F.2d 957, 3rd Cir. (1954)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in a case regarding maintenance and cure owed to an injured seaman. The district court found that the maximum date of recovery from the seaman's injury was September 8, 1946, and that the amount owed for maintenance and cure was $575. It also found there was no proof that self-administered massage and heat treatments were curative in nature. The appellate court determined the district court's findings were justified based on substantial evidence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    209 F.

    2d 957

    Arthur BICKART, Appellant,


    v.
    UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION, Appellee.
    No. 11164.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Argued January 21, 1954.
    Decided February 1, 1954.

    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western
    District of Pennsylvania; Rabe Ferguson Marsh, Jr., Judge.
    Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
    John R. Bredin; Dalzell, Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for
    appellee.
    Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    The district judge found that the date of appellant's maximum recovery from
    the injury involved was September 8, 1946; that the amount due him in this
    action for maintenance and cure was $575, and that there was no proof that the
    massage and heat applications, self administered, under which further
    maintenance is claimed were curative treatments. There is substantial evidence
    to justify those findings.

    The judgment of the district court, 110 F.Supp. 942, will be affirmed.

    You might also like