Claim of MacVittie v. Guterl Speciality Steel. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of MacVittie v. Guterl Speciality Steel. Co.

154 A.D.2d 751, 546 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12407

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 751 (Claim of MacVittie v. Guterl Speciality Steel. 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 MacVittie v. Guterl Speciality Steel. Co., 154 A.D.2d 751, 546 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 25, 1988.

Claimant suffered an occupational loss of hearing and appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board that his claim for compensation benefits is premature because he is still subjected to injurious noise exposure (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb). We affirm. At the hearing, claimant testified that he was employed by New York State Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter NYSEG), that he worked outside "a lot”, that he did not wear noise protectors when working outside because he had to be able to hear a radio, and that when working outside he was subjected to noise from coal and limestone being unloaded from railroad cars into hoppers. In our view, this constituted substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant continued to be exposed to injurious noise and was not, accordingly, disabled within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb (see, Matter of Gude v Elm Coated Fabrics Div., 79 AD2d 786, 787; Matter of McGoldrick v New York Post, 20 AD2d 595). Finally, we concur with the parties that the Board’s findings are not binding upon NYSEG, a nonparty. Thus, lack of notice to NYSEG provides no basis for reversal (see, Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 21-22).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 25, 1988.

Claimant suffered an occupational loss of hearing and appeals from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board that his claim for compensation benefits is premature because he is still subjected to injurious noise exposure (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb). We affirm. At the hearing, claimant testified that he was employed by New York State Electric & Gas Company (hereinafter NYSEG), that he worked outside "a lot”, that he did not wear noise protectors when working outside because he had to be able to hear a radio, and that when working outside he was subjected to noise from coal and limestone being unloaded from railroad cars into hoppers. In our view, this constituted substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant continued to be exposed to injurious noise and was not, accordingly, disabled within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb (see, Matter of Gude v Elm Coated Fabrics Div., 79 AD2d 786, 787; Matter of McGoldrick v New York Post, 20 AD2d 595). Finally, we concur with the parties that the Board’s findings are not binding upon NYSEG, a nonparty. Thus, lack of notice to NYSEG provides no basis for reversal (see, Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 21-22).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 751, 546 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-macvittie-v-guterl-speciality-steel-co-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack