Claim of Bombala v. Lark Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Bombala v. Lark Manufacturing Co.

32 A.D.2d 593, 299 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4147

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

DecidedApril 24, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 593 (Claim of Bombala v. Lark Manufacturing 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 Bombala v. Lark Manufacturing Co., 32 A.D.2d 593, 299 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

J.Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to support the hoard’s finding of accidental injury and causal relationship. The hoard found that claimant experienced aggravation of an underlying rheumatic endocarditis which in turn was a factor in the development of cardiac failure culminating in surgery as a result of his work activities inside the unventilated drum of a cement mixer. Clearly the board could find that the welding and lifting activities performed inside the confines of the air depleted drum met the test of Matter of Masse v. Robinson (301 N. Y. 34) and that the injury due to the usual effort, although spread over a period of some days or more, was accidental (Matter of Murphy v. Howard & Schaffer, 17 A D 2d 882). The issue of causal relationship presents no more than the usual conflict of medical testimony, and since we find advanced no valid reason why the board could not accept ,the testimony that casual relationship existed, the board’s determination must be upheld (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci & Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

J.Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to support the hoard’s finding of accidental injury and causal relationship. The hoard found that claimant experienced aggravation of an underlying rheumatic endocarditis which in turn was a factor in the development of cardiac failure culminating in surgery as a result of his work activities inside the unventilated drum of a cement mixer. Clearly the board could find that the welding and lifting activities performed inside the confines of the air depleted drum met the test of Matter of Masse v. Robinson (301 N. Y. 34) and that the injury due to the usual effort, although spread over a period of some days or more, was accidental (Matter of Murphy v. Howard & Schaffer, 17 A D 2d 882). The issue of causal relationship presents no more than the usual conflict of medical testimony, and since we find advanced no valid reason why the board could not accept ,the testimony that casual relationship existed, the board’s determination must be upheld (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci & Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 593, 299 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-bombala-v-lark-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack