Andrews v. T & G Floor & Wall Covering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andrews v. T & G Floor & Wall Covering

122 A.D.2d 355, 504 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59686

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 10, 1986·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

— Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 18, 1985.

The Workers’ Compensation Board has found that claimant suffers from an occupational disease of the left leg, resulting from his employment as a tile setter. The only issue on this appeal is whether claimant should receive compensation on the basis of a permanent partial disability, or a scheduled loss under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3). Resolution of this issue is a question of fact within the exclusive province of the Board (Matter of Donahue v Thomas H. Bradley, Inc., 90 AD2d 611). Here, there is medical evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision. Although the proof was conflicting, it was properly resolved as a factual determination by the Board (see, Matter of Clifford v Larkin Rest., 31 AD2d 866).

[356] Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 18, 1985.

The Workers’ Compensation Board has found that claimant suffers from an occupational disease of the left leg, resulting from his employment as a tile setter. The only issue on this appeal is whether claimant should receive compensation on the basis of a permanent partial disability, or a scheduled loss under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3). Resolution of this issue is a question of fact within the exclusive province of the Board (Matter of Donahue v Thomas H. Bradley, Inc., 90 AD2d 611). Here, there is medical evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision. Although the proof was conflicting, it was properly resolved as a factual determination by the Board (see, Matter of Clifford v Larkin Rest., 31 AD2d 866).

[356] Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

Andrews v. T & G Floor & Wall Covering, 122 A.D.2d 355, 504 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

122 A.D.2d 355 (Andrews v. T & G Floor & Wall Covering) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related