Claim of Beintema v. Town of Islip Highway Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Beintema v. Town of Islip Highway Department

4 A.D.2d 921, 166 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 921 (Claim of Beintema v. Town of Islip Highway Department) 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 Beintema v. Town of Islip Highway Department, 4 A.D.2d 921, 166 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed a referee’s decision that there was no causal relation between an accident suffered by claimant and the subsequent loss of both legs by amputation. While claimant was employed [922]*922cutting trees, a branch of a falling tree struck his right leg. In his claim for compensation claimant so stated, and the history which he gave to the first attending physician and upon his subsequent admission to a hospital was to the same effect. While claimant later ■ testified that he was struck on both legs,- the board was not bound to accept such testimony and did not. The board found that claimant was struck on the right leg, and “ The accidental injury which claimant sustained to his right leg cleared up within a few days." It is undisputed that claimant suffered from a pre-existing circulatory disease of long standing. The left leg developed a gangrenous condition which required the amputation of that limb in January, 1951. Subsequently a similar condition in the right foot resulted in amputation of the right limb in April, 1951. While there is some medical evidence that the amputations were related to the accident (some of such evidence being based upon an assumption that the left leg was injured in the accident, an assumption which the board did not accept), there is also medical evidence that the amputations were unrelated to the accident, but were the result of a gangrenous condition brought about solely by the pre-existing disease and circulatory deficiency. We think the record as a whole presents a clear question of fact, with substantial evidence to sustain the board's finding that there was no causal relationship. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ. [See post, p. 996.]

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

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which affirmed a referee’s decision that there was no causal relation between an accident suffered by claimant and the subsequent loss of both legs by amputation. While claimant was employed [922]*922cutting trees, a branch of a falling tree struck his right leg. In his claim for compensation claimant so stated, and the history which he gave to the first attending physician and upon his subsequent admission to a hospital was to the same effect. While claimant later ■ testified that he was struck on both legs,- the board was not bound to accept such testimony and did not. The board found that claimant was struck on the right leg, and “ The accidental injury which claimant sustained to his right leg cleared up within a few days." It is undisputed that claimant suffered from a pre-existing circulatory disease of long standing. The left leg developed a gangrenous condition which required the amputation of that limb in January, 1951. Subsequently a similar condition in the right foot resulted in amputation of the right limb in April, 1951. While there is some medical evidence that the amputations were related to the accident (some of such evidence being based upon an assumption that the left leg was injured in the accident, an assumption which the board did not accept), there is also medical evidence that the amputations were unrelated to the accident, but were the result of a gangrenous condition brought about solely by the pre-existing disease and circulatory deficiency. We think the record as a whole presents a clear question of fact, with substantial evidence to sustain the board's finding that there was no causal relationship. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ. [See post, p. 996.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 921, 166 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-beintema-v-town-of-islip-highway-department-nyappdiv-1957.