Claim of Saunders v. Liberty Wholesale Meats

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Saunders v. Liberty Wholesale Meats

21 A.D.2d 708, 249 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870

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

DecidedMay 6, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.2d 708 (Claim of Saunders v. Liberty Wholesale Meats) 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 Saunders v. Liberty Wholesale Meats, 21 A.D.2d 708, 249 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded minimal benefits for temporary partial disability on the grounds that the claimant’s testimony was incredible and therefore did not constitute substantial evidence. The record demonstrates that the Referee and members of the board had serious doubts as to the veracity of the claimant and disallowed benefits for the weeks where there was testimony that the claimant was employed. The board, however, as to its finding of partial disability relied upon the medical testimony of Doctors Jahss and Klein, whose opinions were not based entirely on the complaints of the claimant but also on their examinations of the claimant. There was, therefore, testimony which the board could and apparently did accept and which, in our opinion, constituted substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which awarded minimal benefits for temporary partial disability on the grounds that the claimant’s testimony was incredible and therefore did not constitute substantial evidence. The record demonstrates that the Referee and members of the board had serious doubts as to the veracity of the claimant and disallowed benefits for the weeks where there was testimony that the claimant was employed. The board, however, as to its finding of partial disability relied upon the medical testimony of Doctors Jahss and Klein, whose opinions were not based entirely on the complaints of the claimant but also on their examinations of the claimant. There was, therefore, testimony which the board could and apparently did accept and which, in our opinion, constituted substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.2d 708, 249 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-saunders-v-liberty-wholesale-meats-nyappdiv-1964.