Claim of Kendrick v. Mohawk Valley Oil Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Kendrick v. Mohawk Valley Oil Co.

78 A.D.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13289

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 745 (Claim of Kendrick v. Mohawk Valley Oil 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 Kendrick v. Mohawk Valley Oil Co., 78 A.D.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed February 26, 1979, which disallowed a claim for death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The board found: "on the basis of the evidence in the record, particularly Dr. Cohen’s testimony, that claimant’s death was not causally related to his work activity on September 17, 1974 and that the death was due to the natural progression of claimant’s underlying heart disease.” The board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. Claimant’s other contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Casey. JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not •taking part.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed February 26, 1979, which disallowed a claim for death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The board found: "on the basis of the evidence in the record, particularly Dr. Cohen’s testimony, that claimant’s death was not causally related to his work activity on September 17, 1974 and that the death was due to the natural progression of claimant’s underlying heart disease.” The board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. Claimant’s other contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Casey. JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not •taking part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 745, 432 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-kendrick-v-mohawk-valley-oil-co-nyappdiv-1980.