Claim of Besner v. Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Besner v. Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratory

24 A.D.2d 1045, 265 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2769

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 20, 1965·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision awarding benefits for death from acute myeloblastie leukemia, found due to exposure to radiation. The case was before us on a prior appeal (18 A D 2d 952). The record discloses that decedent was exposed to radiation for a substantial part of two periods and also at other times in various amounts. The testimony of the medical experts is emphatic that there is really no “ threshold ” or “ safe ” dosage of radiation because at the present stage of scientific knowledge it cannot be ascertained exactly what effects radiation has on the human body. It is also admitted that each individual reacts differently to exposure to radiation. The award is supported by substantial evidence and by the presumptions (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 2; § 47), especially so in view of decedent’s good health prior to his employment. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision awarding benefits for death from acute myeloblastie leukemia, found due to exposure to radiation. The case was before us on a prior appeal (18 A D 2d 952). The record discloses that decedent was exposed to radiation for a substantial part of two periods and also at other times in various amounts. The testimony of the medical experts is emphatic that there is really no “ threshold ” or “ safe ” dosage of radiation because at the present stage of scientific knowledge it cannot be ascertained exactly what effects radiation has on the human body. It is also admitted that each individual reacts differently to exposure to radiation. The award is supported by substantial evidence and by the presumptions (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 2; § 47), especially so in view of decedent’s good health prior to his employment. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Claim of Besner v. Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratory, 24 A.D.2d 1045, 265 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

24 A.D.2d 1045 (Claim of Besner v. Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratory) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related