Claim of Curley v. City of Binghamton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Curley v. City of Binghamton

199 A.D.2d 784, 608 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12191

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 784 (Claim of Curley v. City of Binghamton) 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 Curley v. City of Binghamton, 199 A.D.2d 784, 608 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 15, 1992 and March 29, 1993, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant’s arteriosclerotic heart disease is not an occupational disease and that claimant’s angina was an accidental injury in the course of his employment.

Claimant was employed as a captain in the City of Binghamton Fire Department when he experienced angina while fighting a fire. Upon examination, claimant was found to be suffering from arteriosclerotic heart disease. We find that medical testimony provided substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that the angina constituted a compensible injury but that the arteriosclerotic heart disease was not an occupational disease. The existence of conflicting medical testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Cardona, [785]*785JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeals from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 15, 1992 and March 29, 1993, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant’s arteriosclerotic heart disease is not an occupational disease and that claimant’s angina was an accidental injury in the course of his employment.

Claimant was employed as a captain in the City of Binghamton Fire Department when he experienced angina while fighting a fire. Upon examination, claimant was found to be suffering from arteriosclerotic heart disease. We find that medical testimony provided substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that the angina constituted a compensible injury but that the arteriosclerotic heart disease was not an occupational disease. The existence of conflicting medical testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Cardona, [785]*785JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 784, 608 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-curley-v-city-of-binghamton-nyappdiv-1993.