Claim of Minnard v. Cortland Glass Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Minnard v. Cortland Glass Co.

217 A.D.2d 715, 628 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7631

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 6, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeals from two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 4, 1991 and June 26, 1992, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant did not establish a permanent disability.

Claimant suffered a compensable back injury while lifting an insulated window unit working as a laborer for a glass contractor. She received treatment and returned to work, but subsequently left her employment as a laborer to do office work for another employer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that claimant suffered no permanent disability and closed the case. The Board affirmed and claimant appeals.

Medical evidence was presented to the Board which indicated that no permanent disability exists. The fact that some conflicting evidence was presented merely raised a question of fact for the Board to resolve. Given that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we affirm.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeals from two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 4, 1991 and June 26, 1992, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant did not establish a permanent disability.

Claimant suffered a compensable back injury while lifting an insulated window unit working as a laborer for a glass contractor. She received treatment and returned to work, but subsequently left her employment as a laborer to do office work for another employer. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that claimant suffered no permanent disability and closed the case. The Board affirmed and claimant appeals.

Medical evidence was presented to the Board which indicated that no permanent disability exists. The fact that some conflicting evidence was presented merely raised a question of fact for the Board to resolve. Given that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we affirm.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Claim of Minnard v. Cortland Glass Co., 217 A.D.2d 715, 628 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

217 A.D.2d 715 (Claim of Minnard v. Cortland Glass Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related