Claim of Vrabec v. Period Art Reproductions, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Vrabec v. Period Art Reproductions, Inc.

37 A.D.2d 895, 325 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3191

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 895 (Claim of Vrabec v. Period Art Reproductions, Inc.) 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 Vrabec v. Period Art Reproductions, Inc., 37 A.D.2d 895, 325 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 13, 1970, which found “ on the evidence that the claimant used a tool in his work which caused pressure against the right breast * * * that the lipoma of the right breast is causally related to the nature of the claimant’s employment and that the claimant sustained an occupational disease within the meaning of the law ”. The appellants’ doctor testified that in his opinion a lipoma would not be caused by trauma, pressure, or irritation. However, he did not deny that there was some medical opinion to the contrary. The claimant’s doctors acknowledged that lipomas could develop without any known pressure or traumatic irritation, but testified that constant irritation or pressure could cause a lipoma and that the claimant’s lipoma was caused by irritation. The fact that the doctors were unable to pinpoint the [896]*896cause of lipomas in all cases does not render their opinion that the constant irritation on the claimant’s chest in the present case did cause the claimant’s lipoma insubstantial. (See Matter of Benenati v. Tin Plate Lithographing Co., 29 A D 2d 805; Matter of Shannon v. Grumman Aircraft, 35 A D 2d 230, 233.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Sweeney, 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 a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed July 13, 1970, which found “ on the evidence that the claimant used a tool in his work which caused pressure against the right breast * * * that the lipoma of the right breast is causally related to the nature of the claimant’s employment and that the claimant sustained an occupational disease within the meaning of the law ”. The appellants’ doctor testified that in his opinion a lipoma would not be caused by trauma, pressure, or irritation. However, he did not deny that there was some medical opinion to the contrary. The claimant’s doctors acknowledged that lipomas could develop without any known pressure or traumatic irritation, but testified that constant irritation or pressure could cause a lipoma and that the claimant’s lipoma was caused by irritation. The fact that the doctors were unable to pinpoint the [896]*896cause of lipomas in all cases does not render their opinion that the constant irritation on the claimant’s chest in the present case did cause the claimant’s lipoma insubstantial. (See Matter of Benenati v. Tin Plate Lithographing Co., 29 A D 2d 805; Matter of Shannon v. Grumman Aircraft, 35 A D 2d 230, 233.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 895, 325 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-vrabec-v-period-art-reproductions-inc-nyappdiv-1971.