Claim of Lawrence v. U. S. Seaboard Terminal & Refrigeration Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Lawrence v. U. S. Seaboard Terminal & Refrigeration Co.

14 A.D.2d 655, 219 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9345

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

DecidedAugust 15, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 655 (Claim of Lawrence v. U. S. Seaboard Terminal & Refrigeration 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 Lawrence v. U. S. Seaboard Terminal & Refrigeration Co., 14 A.D.2d 655, 219 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Doctor Kaufman, who saw claimant on a single occasion, subsequently testified that claimant had a slipped intervertebral disc at the 5 L S I level which totally disabled him at that time and wMeh was causally related to the original accident. Doctor Rabinowitz, the consultant of tho carrier who had examined claimant on four occasions, testified on September 10, 1957 that he had found radiographically, but not ¿HnieaEy, evidence of disc pathology which pre-existed the accident. The hoard found ts The weight of the probative medical evidence indicates there is no further causally related disability.” The conflicting medical evidence on the subject of causally related disability presented a question of fact which was within the power of the board to determine and there is substantial evidence to sustain its conclusion. (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci & Son, 6 A D 2d 911, affd. 5 N Y 2d 529.) The determination of the board “ that a rehearing for the purpose of producing Dr. Seaman is not warranted” may not be regarded as arbitrary. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, J. P„, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

Doctor Kaufman, who saw claimant on a single occasion, subsequently testified that claimant had a slipped intervertebral disc at the 5 L S I level which totally disabled him at that time and wMeh was causally related to the original accident. Doctor Rabinowitz, the consultant of tho carrier who had examined claimant on four occasions, testified on September 10, 1957 that he had found radiographically, but not ¿HnieaEy, evidence of disc pathology which pre-existed the accident. The hoard found ts The weight of the probative medical evidence indicates there is no further causally related disability.” The conflicting medical evidence on the subject of causally related disability presented a question of fact which was within the power of the board to determine and there is substantial evidence to sustain its conclusion. (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci & Son, 6 A D 2d 911, affd. 5 N Y 2d 529.) The determination of the board “ that a rehearing for the purpose of producing Dr. Seaman is not warranted” may not be regarded as arbitrary. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, J. P„, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 655, 219 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-lawrence-v-u-s-seaboard-terminal-refrigeration-co-nyappdiv-1961.