Claim of Pickhardt v. C. H. Heist Ohio Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Pickhardt v. C. H. Heist Ohio Corp.

20 A.D.2d 737, 246 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4382

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 737 (Claim of Pickhardt v. C. H. Heist Ohio Corp.) 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 Pickhardt v. C. H. Heist Ohio Corp., 20 A.D.2d 737, 246 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of death benefits. Decedent, age 35, sustained a fatal coronary attack on November 29,1961. The record reveals that on the day of his demise decedent had worked as a member of a three-man crew raising 35-pound galvanized sheets to a scaffold by means of a pulley and that just prior to the fatal attack he had ascended a 50-foot ladder. Appellants urge, however, that considering these specific activities in relation to decedent’s customary and usual work there was no “unusual or excessive strain” upon which the board could predicate a finding of an industrial accident. This argument was specifically met and rejected in Matter of Sczesniak v. Whitney (12 A D 2d 366), and it is now well settled that the performance of one’s customary duties does not preclude the finding that such activities themselves are sufficiently arduous to entail “greater exertion than the ordinary wear and tear of life” (e.g., Matter of Hudson v. Waddington Constr., 14 A D 2d 463). Whether given activities constitute sufficient strain is an issue of fact and thus within the province of the board (Matter of Masse v. Robinson Co., 301 N. Y. 34), and on the instant record we see no reason to disturb the board’s determination. Similarly the question of causal relationship is factual, and although the medical evidence was conflicting, the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and must therefore be sustained (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci & Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of death benefits. Decedent, age 35, sustained a fatal coronary attack on November 29,1961. The record reveals that on the day of his demise decedent had worked as a member of a three-man crew raising 35-pound galvanized sheets to a scaffold by means of a pulley and that just prior to the fatal attack he had ascended a 50-foot ladder. Appellants urge, however, that considering these specific activities in relation to decedent’s customary and usual work there was no “unusual or excessive strain” upon which the board could predicate a finding of an industrial accident. This argument was specifically met and rejected in Matter of Sczesniak v. Whitney (12 A D 2d 366), and it is now well settled that the performance of one’s customary duties does not preclude the finding that such activities themselves are sufficiently arduous to entail “greater exertion than the ordinary wear and tear of life” (e.g., Matter of Hudson v. Waddington Constr., 14 A D 2d 463). Whether given activities constitute sufficient strain is an issue of fact and thus within the province of the board (Matter of Masse v. Robinson Co., 301 N. Y. 34), and on the instant record we see no reason to disturb the board’s determination. Similarly the question of causal relationship is factual, and although the medical evidence was conflicting, the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and must therefore be sustained (Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci & Sons, 5 N Y 2d 529). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 737, 246 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-pickhardt-v-c-h-heist-ohio-corp-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack