# Rotino v. J. P. Scanlon, Inc.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · August 28, 1940 · 125 N.J.L. 227

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3560246

## Case

- **Full name:** Rosario Rotino, Prosecutor, v. J. P. Scanlon, Inc., Defendant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** August 28, 1940
- **Citations:** 125 N.J.L. 227; 15 A.2d 336; 1940 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 89
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Case
- **Judges:** Donges, Heher
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3560246

## Opinion text

The opinion of the court was delivered by
Case, J.
We have for review a judgment in the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas which affirmed the dismissal by the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau of prosecutor’s petition for a larger compensation because of alleged increased permanent disability. The question is of fact as to whether there is an increase in permanent disability chargeable to the accident upon which the original award was made. The
*228
bureau decided in the negative; the finding was that any increase that there has been is due to the natural progress of a pre-existing condition and that the workman has been fully compensated for any disability resulting from the accident. So, too, the Pleas on appeal.
We have,
Anderson
v.
Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.,
118
N. J. L.
55;
Grotsky
v.
Charles Grotsky, Inc.,
121
Id.
461, examined the testimony. There is proof both ways, but we conclude that it does not weigh down in favor of the prosecutor. Upon a petition to establish and obtain amended allowance for an increase or a decrease in disability the burden is upon him who asserts the change.
Pasquale
v.
Clyde Piece Dye Works,
120
Id.
557.
Cf. Tucker
v.
Frank J. Beltramo, Inc.,
117
Id.
72 (at
p.
80);
affirmed,
118
Id.
301; also the Supreme Court opinion in
Cirillo
v.
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.,
120
Id.
225 (reversed on other grounds, 121
Id.
511). The testimony of increase or of decrease must be predicated upon the condition and causes determined at the original hearing.
Cirillo
v.
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.,
121
Id.
511. The rule is particularly pertinent here for the reason that, against petitioner’s contention on the original claim, claimant did, prior to the accident, suffer from earlier disease or injury disassociated from the employment, which was chargeable with a percentage of the disability. A judgment under the Workmen’s Compensation act is
res adjudicata
of the nature and extent of the disability then existent.
Cirillo
v.
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., supra.
The deputy commissioner, the same at both hearings, considered that the present increased disability is the result of the pre-existing ailments, without contribution from the incidents of employment. The Court of Common Pleas agreed. Our study of the proofs brings us to the same conclusion.
We discover no error in the form of the determination and judgment in the Common Pleas or in the method by which the judge arrived thereat. The decision plainly shows that the judge studied the transcript of the record and testimony and the arguments of counsel. He briefly comments upon the professional testimony and gives his reaction to those proofs;
*229
and in so doing commits no reversible error. We are satisfied from the record that he gave original study to the case and reached an independent conclusion. He arrived at the same result as did the bureau and incorporated within his determination the award of that tribunal. It was not necessary that he should reach for new words or other phrases with which to express his findings.
The judgment below will be affirmed, with costs.
Mr. Justice Heher dissents and favors a reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3560246. Public record. Not legal advice.