Claim of Spector v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Spector v. Grossman

6 A.D.2d 913, 175 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 913 (Claim of Spector v. Grossman) 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 Spector v. Grossman, 6 A.D.2d 913, 175 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The issues raised are of accident and causal relationship. Claimant was employed as a fruit clerk in a fruit and vegetable market. The evidence upon which the board relied was that on August 1, 1953 while lifting boxes of merchandise, he sustained accidental injury in the nature of acute posterior myocardial infarction with pains in the chest. After consulting a doctor and receiving treatment he stayed in [914]*914bed for a day, then resumed his employment. On August 4, 1953 he collapsed and was sent home. The award involved here covered various periods of total and partial disability between August 4, 1953 and November 7, 1954. The board has found that he suffered an aggravation due to the unusual exertion and strain in moving boxes of merchandise, unassisted, during the course of his regular employment and that this occurrence was an accidental injury as contemplated by the statute. On the question of causal relationship, there was a sharp dispute between the medical experts, which presented a question of fact. This factual dispute has been resolved by the board in favor of the claimant. We feel that there was a substantial basis for the findings of the board. Certainly wé may not say as a matter of law that such is not the case. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The issues raised are of accident and causal relationship. Claimant was employed as a fruit clerk in a fruit and vegetable market. The evidence upon which the board relied was that on August 1, 1953 while lifting boxes of merchandise, he sustained accidental injury in the nature of acute posterior myocardial infarction with pains in the chest. After consulting a doctor and receiving treatment he stayed in [914]*914bed for a day, then resumed his employment. On August 4, 1953 he collapsed and was sent home. The award involved here covered various periods of total and partial disability between August 4, 1953 and November 7, 1954. The board has found that he suffered an aggravation due to the unusual exertion and strain in moving boxes of merchandise, unassisted, during the course of his regular employment and that this occurrence was an accidental injury as contemplated by the statute. On the question of causal relationship, there was a sharp dispute between the medical experts, which presented a question of fact. This factual dispute has been resolved by the board in favor of the claimant. We feel that there was a substantial basis for the findings of the board. Certainly wé may not say as a matter of law that such is not the case. Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 913, 175 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-spector-v-grossman-nyappdiv-1958.