Claim of Bolek v. George Tieman & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Bolek v. George Tieman & Co.

216 A.D.2d 608, 627 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843

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

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 608 (Claim of Bolek v. George Tieman & Co.) 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 Bolek v. George Tieman & Co., 216 A.D.2d 608, 627 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 27, 1992, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant sustained a causally related disability and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant, a surgical instrument polisher, was at work cleaning surgical instruments with muriatic acid when he became dizzy and light-headed from inhaling acid vapors. As a result, he fell to the cement floor sustaining serious injuries to his [609]*609head. We find substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision that the injuries to claimant’s head and his posttraumatic stress syndrome were causally related to the accident. We further find that, inasmuch as neither the employer nor carrier raised it at the first hearing, the Board properly refused to address the adequacy of claimant’s notice of injury. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 27, 1992, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant sustained a causally related disability and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant, a surgical instrument polisher, was at work cleaning surgical instruments with muriatic acid when he became dizzy and light-headed from inhaling acid vapors. As a result, he fell to the cement floor sustaining serious injuries to his [609]*609head. We find substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision that the injuries to claimant’s head and his posttraumatic stress syndrome were causally related to the accident. We further find that, inasmuch as neither the employer nor carrier raised it at the first hearing, the Board properly refused to address the adequacy of claimant’s notice of injury. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 608, 627 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-bolek-v-george-tieman-co-nyappdiv-1995.