Claim of Rock v. Sullivan County Sheriff's Department

199 A.D.2d 659, 604 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11747
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 9, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 659 (Claim of Rock v. Sullivan County Sheriff's Department) 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 Rock v. Sullivan County Sheriff's Department, 199 A.D.2d 659, 604 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Mahoney, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 27, 1992, which, inter alia, established accident, notice and causal relationship.

In this appeal, the employer objects to the Workers’ Compensation Board’s ruling that, given the job-related stress that claimant’s decedent was under, his myocardial infarction was causally related to his job activities. Testimony indicated that decedent, a correction officer, experienced months of job-related stress and strain arising from an investigation involving an incident where a prisoner died while under decedent’s charge due to decedent’s alleged neglect, two subsequent physical assaults upon decedent by inmates, and an ultimately dismissed investigation into whether he aided in a jail break by selling the escapee a hacksaw blade. Decedent’s treating physician testified that the infarction was caused in part by these stresses. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s findings (see, e.g., Matter of Greenbaum v MKI Sec., 189 AD2d 986; Matter of Sturtevant v Broome County, 188 AD2d 893). The fact that other preexisting conditions also may have contributed to the infarction does not require a different result (see, e.g., Matter of Black v Metropolitan Tobacco, 71 NY2d 989). Further, the fact that the employer’s medical expert testified to the contrary regarding the issue of causation merely created a question of fact for determination by the Board (see, e.g., Matter of Curtis v Adirondack Trailways, 146 AD2d 900).

Weiss, P. J., Mercure, Cardona and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Claim of Geed v. Sullivan County Sheriff's Department
266 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Becker v. Stryco Construction Co.
252 A.D.2d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Claim of Ayers v. Tioga County Sheriff's Department
240 A.D.2d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Claim of Stewart v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.
236 A.D.2d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 A.D.2d 659, 604 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-rock-v-sullivan-county-sheriffs-department-nyappdiv-1993.