Claim of Cutro v. Mobile Warehousing, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Cutro v. Mobile Warehousing, Inc.

31 A.D.2d 678, 295 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2626

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 678 (Claim of Cutro v. Mobile Warehousing, Inc.) 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 Cutro v. Mobile Warehousing, Inc., 31 A.D.2d 678, 295 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed August 1, 1967, which disallowed a claim for death benefits. Claimant argues that decedent underwent excessive strain on the day of his death because of his being rushed and being required to make frequent trips up and downstairs. After referring the record to an impartial cardiologist, a majority of the board panel found that decedent did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The impartial specialist and the carrier’s expert both testified against causal relationship. The resolution of conflicting medical testimony is for the board and its determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed August 1, 1967, which disallowed a claim for death benefits. Claimant argues that decedent underwent excessive strain on the day of his death because of his being rushed and being required to make frequent trips up and downstairs. After referring the record to an impartial cardiologist, a majority of the board panel found that decedent did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The impartial specialist and the carrier’s expert both testified against causal relationship. The resolution of conflicting medical testimony is for the board and its determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 678, 295 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-cutro-v-mobile-warehousing-inc-nyappdiv-1968.