Claim of Abel v. McKaighatch, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Abel v. McKaighatch, Inc.

36 A.D.2d 783, 319 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4475

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 16, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.D.2d 783 (Claim of Abel v. McKaighatch, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Abel v. McKaighatch, Inc., 36 A.D.2d 783, 319 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

[784]*784The statement by the majority that no appeal was taken from a prior decision of the board and, therefore, it is final and conclusive, is correct but not applicable here. Upon a request for review by both employers as a result of the Referee’s decision dated May 15, 1969 the board undertook to review all of the prior proceedings and determinations including its decision of October 18, 1966 and clearly within its authority. The record shows that Dr. Scanio in a report dated November 16, 1965 stated: “ He [Abel] stated that he had worked in noisy areas all of his life, including two years as a millwright at General Drop Forge and that his hearing had been impaired for 7-8 years. I next examined Mr. Abel on May 5, 1962 ” and that claimant sustained a loss of hearing. There was, as noted by the majority, medical evidence that the loss of hearing was not due to industrial noise trauma and thus a medical dispute but it is significant to note that there is no dispute that while working for both employers the claimant was exposed to “harmful noise ” and that he sustained a loss of hearing. There is substantial evidence to sustain the board’s determination.

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

[784]*784The statement by the majority that no appeal was taken from a prior decision of the board and, therefore, it is final and conclusive, is correct but not applicable here. Upon a request for review by both employers as a result of the Referee’s decision dated May 15, 1969 the board undertook to review all of the prior proceedings and determinations including its decision of October 18, 1966 and clearly within its authority. The record shows that Dr. Scanio in a report dated November 16, 1965 stated: “ He [Abel] stated that he had worked in noisy areas all of his life, including two years as a millwright at General Drop Forge and that his hearing had been impaired for 7-8 years. I next examined Mr. Abel on May 5, 1962 ” and that claimant sustained a loss of hearing. There was, as noted by the majority, medical evidence that the loss of hearing was not due to industrial noise trauma and thus a medical dispute but it is significant to note that there is no dispute that while working for both employers the claimant was exposed to “harmful noise ” and that he sustained a loss of hearing. There is substantial evidence to sustain the board’s determination.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.2d 783, 319 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-abel-v-mckaighatch-inc-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack