Martin L. Janes, for Claimant, Direct Mr. Flatto: That's all. The Referee: All right, that's all. The case will be continued to the regular calendar for re-examination by Dr. Davidson. Write up this testimony (to stenographer). Mr. Flatto: Mr. Referee, if there is any question about that report of Dr. Loewe, I might take it and have it verified. I don't want that question of verification 157 Mr. Quigley (int'g): I call your attention to that report which is dated after Dr. Davidson 158 examined him-well after Dr. Davidson's examination. Dr. Davidson examined this man on February 24, 1936, two days before he saw Dr. Janes the second time. If counsel takes that report and has it verified, I don't care how many times, I will object to it. That is not competent evidence. The Referee: Don't you think a hypothetical question to Dr. Davidson will be more valuable than some question put to Dr. Loewe, because that is all Dr. Loewe can do, is give an opinion upon the history, plus his findings in February? Mr. Flatto: Yes, but I don't think Dr. David- 159 son's report is complete. Dr. Davidson's report is very short. The Referee: Yes, he said he wants the first attending physician's testimony. We now have it. Now he is in the same position to give an opinion the same as any other eye specialist. Adjourned to a regular calendar for re-examination by Dr. Davidson, with the minutes of Dr. Janes' testimony. Certified true and correct transcript. CHARLES REISSMAN. May 21, 1936. 162 TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. OF N. Y., Carrier. Hearing before the Industrial Board. Present: L. B. Siegel, Referee. J. Grossman, Calendar Clerk. C. W. Copping, Hearing Stenographer. Appearances: Claimant in person. Harold Flatto, for the claimant. Witnesses: None. Minutes, June 16, 1936 Mr. Quigley: I want an opportunity to crossexamine Dr. Davidson, and I want to produce Dr. Somberg. I want the record to show that I don't think it is within the province of Dr. Davidson to pass comments on what another doctor might find. Referee: Off the record. (Recess.) 163 Referee: Carrier cross-examine Dr. Davidson, also produce Dr. Somberg; three P. M. cal- 164 endar. 168 Hearing before the Industrial Board. Present: L. B. Siegel, Referee. R. Grossman, Clerk. Jean Lahn, Hearing Stenographer. Appearances: W. F. Quigley, Esq., representing employer and carrier. Harold Flatto, Esq., 261 Bdwy., N. Y. C., representing claimant. Claimant. Witnesses: None. (Case duly called.) Mr. Quigley: Mr. Siegel, I notice on my no Minutes, July 7, 1936 tice of hearing it says, "Part 3, July 7, 1936, three P. M." The Referee: Oh, yes, I will hold it. (Case set aside. Recalled later.) The Referee: Do you want to put Dr. Somberg on first? Mr. Quigley: I am resting on the record. The Referee: But you requested an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Davidson and put on Dr. Somberg. Mr. Quigley: I am resting on the record. The Referee: Then you don't want to crossexamine Dr. Davidson. Mr. Quigley: No. May I see your record a minute? (The Referee passes folder.) Mr. Quigley: May I ask, Mr. Referee, whether or not Dr. Davidson's report of February 24, 1936, is part of the record? The Referee: All medical reports are received in evidence and made part of the record. Mr. Quigley: This report of Dr. Loewe is not part of the record. It is not verified. 169 170 The Referee: I think that report explains it- 171 self and was explained at the last hearingthat this examination was made after the claimant went back again to Dr. Janes and that it is based upon the findings in February, 1936, and it is based upon a history of a perforating wound of the globe, and Dr. Janes has been in and testified that he had no perforating wound of the globe. Mr. Quigley: Does the same thing apply to the report of Dr. Loewe dated February 28, 1936? |