Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corp., 209 F.2d 957 (3d Cir. 1954). · Go Syfert
Search
Arthur Bickart v. Union Barge Line Corp., 209 F.2d 957 (3d Cir. 1954). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur BICKART, Appellant,
v.
UNION BARGE LINE CORPORATION, Appellee
11164_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 1, 1954.
Published opinion
209 F.2d 957
1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3692
. Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant., ■John R. Bredin; Dalzell, Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for .appellee.
McLaughlin, Kalodner, Staley.
Published
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 ho 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.