In re the Claim of Brod v. Julius Young Mfg. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Brod v. Julius Young Mfg. Co.

80 A.D.2d 684, 436 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10384

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

DecidedFebruary 12, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 684 (In re the Claim of Brod v. Julius Young Mfg. Co.) 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

In re the Claim of Brod v. Julius Young Mfg. Co., 80 A.D.2d 684, 436 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 17, 1979, which affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowing the claim. Claimant, a 64-year-old jewlery polisher, sought compensation for pulmonary emphysema related to his occupation. Claimant contended that his condition was caused by breathing fumes and dust at work in polishing and finishing gold jewelry. The board found: “that the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of the Impartial Specialist, Dr. Sydney Bassin, indicates that the claimant does not have a pulmonary condition causally related to his employment.” Substantial evidence supports the determination of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 17, 1979, which affirmed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowing the claim. Claimant, a 64-year-old jewlery polisher, sought compensation for pulmonary emphysema related to his occupation. Claimant contended that his condition was caused by breathing fumes and dust at work in polishing and finishing gold jewelry. The board found: “that the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of the Impartial Specialist, Dr. Sydney Bassin, indicates that the claimant does not have a pulmonary condition causally related to his employment.” Substantial evidence supports the determination of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 684, 436 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brod-v-julius-young-mfg-co-nyappdiv-1981.