Claim of Gravino v. M. P. Painting, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Gravino v. M. P. Painting, Inc.

62 A.D.2d 1103, 404 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11198

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

DecidedApril 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.2d 1103 (Claim of Gravino v. M. P. Painting, 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 Gravino v. M. P. Painting, Inc., 62 A.D.2d 1103, 404 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed September 2, 1976. Claimant, a 58-year-old painter worked for the employer, a painting contractor, from May 3, 1973 until July 10, 1973, when he was laid off because of lack of work. During the period from June 20 through June 25, he painted pipes below the ground using Rustoleum; the total of such work amounted to approximately 24 hours. During this employment, claimant used acrylic paints including lacquers. Claimant’s personal physician reported that a pulmonary function test indicated claimant had moderately severe obstruction pulmonary disease on November 28, 1972, diagnosed as emphysema. The employer’s physician diagnosed claimant’s condition as chronic laryngobracheal bronchitis and broncholitis. He stated he had no concrete evidence implicating the chemical irritation "but the nature of his disease process suggests this type of etiology”. The board found that "on the basis of the probative and credible medical evidence in the record that the claimant did not suffer an occupational disease within the meaning of this law and there is no causal relationship between his condition and the employment”. The hoard’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed (Matter of Paider v Park East Movers, 19 NY2d 373). Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Larkin and Mikoll, 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 September 2, 1976. Claimant, a 58-year-old painter worked for the employer, a painting contractor, from May 3, 1973 until July 10, 1973, when he was laid off because of lack of work. During the period from June 20 through June 25, he painted pipes below the ground using Rustoleum; the total of such work amounted to approximately 24 hours. During this employment, claimant used acrylic paints including lacquers. Claimant’s personal physician reported that a pulmonary function test indicated claimant had moderately severe obstruction pulmonary disease on November 28, 1972, diagnosed as emphysema. The employer’s physician diagnosed claimant’s condition as chronic laryngobracheal bronchitis and broncholitis. He stated he had no concrete evidence implicating the chemical irritation "but the nature of his disease process suggests this type of etiology”. The board found that "on the basis of the probative and credible medical evidence in the record that the claimant did not suffer an occupational disease within the meaning of this law and there is no causal relationship between his condition and the employment”. The hoard’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed (Matter of Paider v Park East Movers, 19 NY2d 373). Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 1103, 404 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-gravino-v-m-p-painting-inc-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack