Claim of Hamelin v. Perini Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Hamelin v. Perini Corp.

56 A.D.2d 696, 391 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10855

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 696 (Claim of Hamelin v. Perini 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 Hamelin v. Perini Corp., 56 A.D.2d 696, 391 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10855 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed October 30, 1975, which awarded death benefits. Claimant’s decedent, a 44-year-old mechanic, suffered a heart attack while at work and died of a coronary occlusion. From our review of the record we are of the view that substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the board that decedent, on the night of his death, was engaged in work involving significant physical exertion and mental pressures arising from the need to complete his tasks hurriedly so that other employees could resume their duties. We similarly conclude that the opinion of Dr. Sherwin that there was a causal relationship between decedent’s work and his death is properly founded upon the facts as to the nature of claimant’s work, and, therefore, constitutes substantial evidence to support the finding of causal relationship. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin 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 October 30, 1975, which awarded death benefits. Claimant’s decedent, a 44-year-old mechanic, suffered a heart attack while at work and died of a coronary occlusion. From our review of the record we are of the view that substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the board that decedent, on the night of his death, was engaged in work involving significant physical exertion and mental pressures arising from the need to complete his tasks hurriedly so that other employees could resume their duties. We similarly conclude that the opinion of Dr. Sherwin that there was a causal relationship between decedent’s work and his death is properly founded upon the facts as to the nature of claimant’s work, and, therefore, constitutes substantial evidence to support the finding of causal relationship. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 696, 391 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hamelin-v-perini-corp-nyappdiv-1977.