Claim of Mancini v. AAA Waterproofing Co.

89 A.D.2d 651, 453 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17767
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 8, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 651 (Claim of Mancini v. AAA Waterproofing 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 Mancini v. AAA Waterproofing Co., 89 A.D.2d 651, 453 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 29, 1981, which affirmed the determination of the Administrative Law Judge holding that claimant has not proven reduced earnings and loss of earnings subsequent to August 6,1971. Claimant suffered compensable back injuries on May 25, 1966 and August 23, 1968 which were found to be permanent in nature. The permanency was found attributable to both accidents. An average weekly wage was established of $148 on the 1966 case and $75 per week on the 1968 case. Claimant testified as to his subsequent work activities which included running his own business, work for Midland Accessories and the Yonkers Dental Studio. He produced no documents to verify his income from self-employment, claiming these had been destroyed in a fire. He indicated also that he left his last employer upon his refusal to furnish [652]*652claimant with a business car. Based on claimant’s testimony, the board found that he has suffered no reduced earnings attributable to the accidents. The resolution of questions of credibility lies with the board. Therefore, the board was empowered to discount claimant’s statements which were self-serving and otherwise unsupported by documentary evidence. Whether claimant’s injuries caused reduced earnings is a factual issue within the board’s province to determine and substantial evidence supports its finding (see Matter of Trust v Webster Baking Co., 25 AD2d 807). Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Related

Claim of Hambly v. Big V Supermarkets
254 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.2d 651, 453 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mancini-v-aaa-waterproofing-co-nyappdiv-1982.