Claim of Bilotta v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Div., G.M.C.

81 A.D.2d 718, 439 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 23, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 718 (Claim of Bilotta v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Div., G.M.C.) 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 Bilotta v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Div., G.M.C., 81 A.D.2d 718, 439 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

—■ Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 7, 1980, which affirmed a referee’s determination that claimant had a causally related disability, and awarded her benefits. Claimant sustained a work-related shoulder injury in 1972. The referee’s decision filed in 1973 awarded compensation and closed the case finding no disability or schedule loss. In 1974, claimant sustained another work-related injury to the same shoulder. The referee’s decision on this latter claim filed in 1977, classified the second injury as a 25% permanent partial disability, and closed the case. Initially, the board rescinded this decision and reopened the case on the question of causally related disability. Thereafter, the board held: “Upon review of the record, the Board Panel finds based on the testimony of Dr. Tedesco, that the claimant has a causally related disability subsequent to September 7, 1976 and the award made by the W.C. Law Judge (Referee) is proper and should not be disturbed.” The board found the testimony of its impartial orthopedist determinative. His diagnosis affirmatively indicated a causal relationship. Claimant’s main attending physician, Dr. Ehrenreich, testified to a positive disability and a possible causal relationship. While the record includes conflicting medical testimony, the board is free to choose which experts it will credit, and reject other opinions (Matter of Currie v Town of Davenport, 37 NY2d 472). Upon the entire record, the board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and must, therefore, be affirmed (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of Wallace v. Village of Saranac Lake
87 A.D.2d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 A.D.2d 718, 439 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-bilotta-v-chevrolet-tonawanda-div-gmc-nyappdiv-1981.