Claim of Burlingame v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Burlingame v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

57 A.D.2d 969, 394 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12257

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

DecidedMay 5, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 969 (Claim of Burlingame v. Barden & Robeson Corp.) 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 Burlingame v. Barden & Robeson Corp., 57 A.D.2d 969, 394 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 12, 1975. The sole issue to be determined on this appeal is whether claimant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. The board concluded that it "finds based on probative and credible testimony that claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” The record reveals that claimant, age 59, was employed by respondent as a yardman; that he had been a diabetic since 1966. Claimant testified that on August 2, 1973 a "header beam” fell and injured his right foot; that he continued to work the remainder of the day; that he filed a written report of the accident with the [970]*970superintendent on August 4, 1973; that he also reported the accident to his foreman. Much of claimant’s testimony pertaining to the accident was corroboratéd by a coemployee. Claimant’s right leg was amputated above the knee on September 27, 1973. Claimant’s testimony about the reporting of the accident and subsequent lost time was contradicted by the superintendent, foreman and time cards. The questions of fact and credibility were solely within the province of the trier of fact (Matter of Walter v Ed Walters, Inc., 26 AD2d 870). Since the board implicitly resolved the disputed testimony against claimant, we may not interfere with its fact-finding power (Matter of Putnam v New York State Dept, of Public Works, 24 AD2d 801). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Ma-honey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.'

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 12, 1975. The sole issue to be determined on this appeal is whether claimant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. The board concluded that it "finds based on probative and credible testimony that claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.” The record reveals that claimant, age 59, was employed by respondent as a yardman; that he had been a diabetic since 1966. Claimant testified that on August 2, 1973 a "header beam” fell and injured his right foot; that he continued to work the remainder of the day; that he filed a written report of the accident with the [970]*970superintendent on August 4, 1973; that he also reported the accident to his foreman. Much of claimant’s testimony pertaining to the accident was corroboratéd by a coemployee. Claimant’s right leg was amputated above the knee on September 27, 1973. Claimant’s testimony about the reporting of the accident and subsequent lost time was contradicted by the superintendent, foreman and time cards. The questions of fact and credibility were solely within the province of the trier of fact (Matter of Walter v Ed Walters, Inc., 26 AD2d 870). Since the board implicitly resolved the disputed testimony against claimant, we may not interfere with its fact-finding power (Matter of Putnam v New York State Dept, of Public Works, 24 AD2d 801). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Ma-honey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 969, 394 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-burlingame-v-barden-robeson-corp-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack