Claim of McKinley v. Poirer & McLane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of McKinley v. Poirer & McLane

30 A.D.2d 744, 291 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3599

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

DecidedJune 27, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 744 (Claim of McKinley v. Poirer & McLane) 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 McKinley v. Poirer & McLane, 30 A.D.2d 744, 291 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3599 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing appellants’ application for apportionment made pursuant to section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The sole question presented here is whether there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that claimant was not exposed to conditions causative of or contributing to the occupational disease of Dupuytren’s contracture while employed by respondent Perini, Morrison & Knutson. The record clearly reveals that although claimant’s employment with appellant was brief, it required. extensive use of and pressure on his hands of the type the medical experts concluded would precipitate the occupational disease. By contrast, claimant, who had no motive to color his testimony, steadfastly maintained that although he worked for a considerably longer period with Perini, Morrison & Knutson, his job there was supervisory, “a superintendent, a walking boss ”, and entailed no use of tools or equipment with the exception of instructing new employees as to their use. Moreover, there is no indication of the existence of a lump or lumps on either hand or that claimant experienced even any difficulty with his hands prior to his employment with appellant. Accordingly, on the instant record, and in particular in view of the medical testimony as to the causative factors of the disease, we cannot say that the board could not reach the decision rendered.. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing appellants’ application for apportionment made pursuant to section 44 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The sole question presented here is whether there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that claimant was not exposed to conditions causative of or contributing to the occupational disease of Dupuytren’s contracture while employed by respondent Perini, Morrison & Knutson. The record clearly reveals that although claimant’s employment with appellant was brief, it required. extensive use of and pressure on his hands of the type the medical experts concluded would precipitate the occupational disease. By contrast, claimant, who had no motive to color his testimony, steadfastly maintained that although he worked for a considerably longer period with Perini, Morrison & Knutson, his job there was supervisory, “a superintendent, a walking boss ”, and entailed no use of tools or equipment with the exception of instructing new employees as to their use. Moreover, there is no indication of the existence of a lump or lumps on either hand or that claimant experienced even any difficulty with his hands prior to his employment with appellant. Accordingly, on the instant record, and in particular in view of the medical testimony as to the causative factors of the disease, we cannot say that the board could not reach the decision rendered.. Decision affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 744, 291 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mckinley-v-poirer-mclane-nyappdiv-1968.