Claim of Grovine v. E. W. Edwards & Son

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Grovine v. E. W. Edwards & Son

37 A.D.2d 647, 322 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752

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

DecidedJune 24, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 647 (Claim of Grovine v. E. W. Edwards & Son) 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 Grovine v. E. W. Edwards & Son, 37 A.D.2d 647, 322 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 5, 1970, which rescinded the Referee’s finding of no compensable accident, and found that on the credible evidence claimant’s activities on December 16, 1968 required more than normal exertion and caused her coronary artery disease which constituted an industrial accident. A finding of accident is not precluded because there is present an underlying arteriosclerotic heart condition. (Matter of Cavage v. Spaulding Fibre Co., 35 A D 2d 862.) The question of whether or not an activity constitutes strain greater than the ordinary wear and tear of life is an issue of fact for the board, as is also the resolution of conflicting medical testimony. Since there is substantial evidence supporting the board’s decision we should not disturb it. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, 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Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed June 5, 1970, which rescinded the Referee’s finding of no compensable accident, and found that on the credible evidence claimant’s activities on December 16, 1968 required more than normal exertion and caused her coronary artery disease which constituted an industrial accident. A finding of accident is not precluded because there is present an underlying arteriosclerotic heart condition. (Matter of Cavage v. Spaulding Fibre Co., 35 A D 2d 862.) The question of whether or not an activity constitutes strain greater than the ordinary wear and tear of life is an issue of fact for the board, as is also the resolution of conflicting medical testimony. Since there is substantial evidence supporting the board’s decision we should not disturb it. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 647, 322 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-grovine-v-e-w-edwards-son-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack