Claim of Mosley v. Crucible Steel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Mosley v. Crucible Steel Co.

42 A.D.2d 653, 345 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4044

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

DecidedJune 27, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 653 (Claim of Mosley v. Crucible 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 Mosley v. Crucible Steel Co., 42 A.D.2d 653, 345 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board determining that claimant sustained a compensable hearing loss of 30% in the left ear and 100% in the right ear and awarding benefits for such loss. Claimant, an employee in a steel manufacturing plant for some 41 years, concededly sustained a 30% binaural loss of hearing due to the admittedly high noise level in the plant. Appellants’ assert, however, that there is not substantial medical evidence that the additional loss of hearing found in the right ear is industrially related. The appellants’, of course, offered medical testimony that such was the case. We cannot, however, agree with their contentions since we find that the board could, based on the testimony [654]*654of Dr. Poushter as a whole, properly reach the determination rendered. While We might wish that Dr. Poushter’s testimony were more precise, his method of reaching his conclusions cannot be said to be improper (see Matter of Moore v. Ford Motor Go., 9 A D 2d 165), nor can we say that his testimony lacks the requisite medical certainty (Matter of Ernest v. Boggs Lake Estates, 12 N Y 2d ■414). In the end we find present no more than a conflict of medical opinion which the board could properly resolve as it did (e.g., Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci é Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board determining that claimant sustained a compensable hearing loss of 30% in the left ear and 100% in the right ear and awarding benefits for such loss. Claimant, an employee in a steel manufacturing plant for some 41 years, concededly sustained a 30% binaural loss of hearing due to the admittedly high noise level in the plant. Appellants’ assert, however, that there is not substantial medical evidence that the additional loss of hearing found in the right ear is industrially related. The appellants’, of course, offered medical testimony that such was the case. We cannot, however, agree with their contentions since we find that the board could, based on the testimony [654]*654of Dr. Poushter as a whole, properly reach the determination rendered. While We might wish that Dr. Poushter’s testimony were more precise, his method of reaching his conclusions cannot be said to be improper (see Matter of Moore v. Ford Motor Go., 9 A D 2d 165), nor can we say that his testimony lacks the requisite medical certainty (Matter of Ernest v. Boggs Lake Estates, 12 N Y 2d ■414). In the end we find present no more than a conflict of medical opinion which the board could properly resolve as it did (e.g., Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci é Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529). Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 653, 345 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-mosley-v-crucible-steel-co-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack