Claim of Heybrouck v. Forst Packing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Heybrouck v. Forst Packing Co.

9 A.D.2d 555, 189 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.2d 555 (Claim of Heybrouck v. Forst Packing Co.) 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 Heybrouck v. Forst Packing Co., 9 A.D.2d 555, 189 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which made an award of death benefits. The sole question presented here is whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding that death was related to the accident. On November 20, 1945 in the course of his employment the deceased employee while doing heavy lifting became weak and dizzy. His condition was diagnosed as a ruptured blood vessel in the brain and left hemiplegia resulted. A claim for compensation was filed and the Referee found that the unusual strain and exertion experienced by the decedent was causally related to his resulting disability. On review the board affirmed. The decedent was paid compensation for total disability until the time of his death on April 17, 1954. In the interval his condition grew worse and he developed mental changes. At the hearings held on the claim for death benefits conflicting medical evidence was presented and the Referee disallowed the claim. On review the board reversed, with one member dissenting, and found that the decedent’s death was causally related to his accident of 1945-, There is medical testimony in the record to the effect that the decedent’s death was directly related to the cerebral hemorrhage which resulted from the accident which occurred in 1945. Although the physician expressing this opinion stated at one point that he could not know just how much brain softening had resulted from the accident, he nevertheless testified that such softening had resulted and his opinion as to causal relationship was definite. The board was presented with a conflict in the medical testimony and its decision is supported by substantial medical evidence. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, J. P., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which made an award of death benefits. The sole question presented here is whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding that death was related to the accident. On November 20, 1945 in the course of his employment the deceased employee while doing heavy lifting became weak and dizzy. His condition was diagnosed as a ruptured blood vessel in the brain and left hemiplegia resulted. A claim for compensation was filed and the Referee found that the unusual strain and exertion experienced by the decedent was causally related to his resulting disability. On review the board affirmed. The decedent was paid compensation for total disability until the time of his death on April 17, 1954. In the interval his condition grew worse and he developed mental changes. At the hearings held on the claim for death benefits conflicting medical evidence was presented and the Referee disallowed the claim. On review the board reversed, with one member dissenting, and found that the decedent’s death was causally related to his accident of 1945-, There is medical testimony in the record to the effect that the decedent’s death was directly related to the cerebral hemorrhage which resulted from the accident which occurred in 1945. Although the physician expressing this opinion stated at one point that he could not know just how much brain softening had resulted from the accident, he nevertheless testified that such softening had resulted and his opinion as to causal relationship was definite. The board was presented with a conflict in the medical testimony and its decision is supported by substantial medical evidence. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, J. P., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.2d 555, 189 N.Y.S.2d 359, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-heybrouck-v-forst-packing-co-nyappdiv-1959.