Letters Received to C.B. Lee, Edwin F. Smith, Burton E. Emory, June 21, 1932
Images (3)
Document
| id |
id
75727183
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 3COLLINS & CORBIN
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
CLEMENT K. CORBIN
ROBERT J. BAIN
JUN 221932
EDWARD A. MARKLEY CHARLES w. BROADHURST
1 EXCHANGE PLACE,
HOWARD F. MC INTYRE JAMES B. EMORY
JERSEY CITY, N. J.
PATRICK F. MC DEVITT
JOHN F. LEONARD
JOHN P. GILMARTIN
JAMES J. LANGAN
ADOLPH s. HUMMEL
June 21, 1932.
Lamptron V. U. S. Radium Corp.
C. B. Lee, Esq.,
Pres. U. S. Radium Corp.
535 Pearl Street, New York City.
Edwin F. Smith, Esq. ,
1 Exchange Place,
Jersey City, N. J.
Burton E. Emory, Esq.
Mgr. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
100 William St. New York City.
Gentlemen:
I acknowledge receipt of Mr. Smith's letter of
the 17th with copy of letter to Mr. Lee of the same date in
the above. It appears that the plaintiff's employment was in
1918 and 1919. I assume that this case would come to the
attention of the Aetna and the New Amsterdam.
I would like to have Mr. Lee advise on the
question of coverage as to what companies are on this risk.
Mr. McGeehan has not attempted to claim good
health for this claimant until within two years of the claim,
as o ther attorneys have done. On the contrary he frequently
states in his letter that about two years after she left the
employ of the radium ampany, she was confined to her bed;
likewise that she was confined to her bed in 1929 when she
was extremely anemic, skin was dry, etc.
This case would seem to be a strong case for
the company on the point that the statute of limitations
is a bar. Nevertheless, I think it would be wise to have
our medical staff examine and would suggest Dr. Maver for
the X-rays, Drs. Brothers and Rector for the surgical end
and Dr. Davidson or one of his partners for the dental end.
If this is agreeable I shall be glad to make the arrangements
for the examinations, or Mr. Smith can do so, or we can do so
together.
I assume that the case will be considered and
passed upon with the same reservation as heretofore as to
Relations
belongs_to
belongs_to