Claim of Kinard v. Battle Verzeni Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Kinard v. Battle Verzeni Construction Co.

160 A.D.2d 1208, 555 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4696

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

DecidedApril 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 1208 (Claim of Kinard v. Battle Verzeni Construction 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 Kinard v. Battle Verzeni Construction Co., 160 A.D.2d 1208, 555 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 11, 1989.

The employer, Battle Verzeni Construction Company, contends that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding of a causally related disability is not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, the employer points to certain alleged inconsistencies and asserts that the testimony of claimant’s expert is incredible as a matter of law. Based upon our review of the record, however, we agree with the Board that the claimed inconsistencies, together with the conflicting opinion of the employer’s expert, created a factual question of credibility which was for the Board to resolve (see, e.g., Matter of Film v Holmes Transp., 147 AD2d 831). We also find no merit in the employer’s argument that the Board could not award an appearance fee to claimant’s medical expert (see, 12 NYCRR 301.1).

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation [1209]*1209Board. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 5, 1989.

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

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 11, 1989.

The employer, Battle Verzeni Construction Company, contends that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding of a causally related disability is not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, the employer points to certain alleged inconsistencies and asserts that the testimony of claimant’s expert is incredible as a matter of law. Based upon our review of the record, however, we agree with the Board that the claimed inconsistencies, together with the conflicting opinion of the employer’s expert, created a factual question of credibility which was for the Board to resolve (see, e.g., Matter of Film v Holmes Transp., 147 AD2d 831). We also find no merit in the employer’s argument that the Board could not award an appearance fee to claimant’s medical expert (see, 12 NYCRR 301.1).

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation [1209]*1209Board. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 5, 1989.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 1208, 555 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-kinard-v-battle-verzeni-construction-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack