Claim of Brown v. Penguin Air Conditioning

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Brown v. Penguin Air Conditioning

113 A.D.3d 1009, 978 N.Y.2d 922

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 1009 (Claim of Brown v. Penguin Air Conditioning) 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 Brown v. Penguin Air Conditioning, 113 A.D.3d 1009, 978 N.Y.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Stein, J.

We affirm. We disagree with the employer’s contention that the opinions of the two physicians who found claimant to have suffered work-related injuries were overly speculative. The physicians who offered those opinions relied, in part, on claimant’s account of the accident, which the Board found to be credible. They also examined claimant and reviewed the results of diagnostic tests, as well as other treatment records, in order to determine the origin and extent of his injuries. Particularly given the absence of any medical evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the Board’s finding of causally related neck and back injuries is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Perez v Mondial Tiles, Inc., 104 AD3d 998, 999 [2013]; Matter of Paradise v Goulds Pump, 13 AD3d 764, 765 [2004]).

The employer’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

[1010]*1010Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Egan Jr., 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

Stein, J.

We affirm. We disagree with the employer’s contention that the opinions of the two physicians who found claimant to have suffered work-related injuries were overly speculative. The physicians who offered those opinions relied, in part, on claimant’s account of the accident, which the Board found to be credible. They also examined claimant and reviewed the results of diagnostic tests, as well as other treatment records, in order to determine the origin and extent of his injuries. Particularly given the absence of any medical evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the Board’s finding of causally related neck and back injuries is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Perez v Mondial Tiles, Inc., 104 AD3d 998, 999 [2013]; Matter of Paradise v Goulds Pump, 13 AD3d 764, 765 [2004]).

The employer’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

[1010]*1010Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 1009, 978 N.Y.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-brown-v-penguin-air-conditioning-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack