Prouty v. Monroe Contractors Equipment, Inc.

178 A.D.2d 698, 577 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15971
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 698 (Prouty v. Monroe Contractors Equipment, 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
Prouty v. Monroe Contractors Equipment, Inc., 178 A.D.2d 698, 577 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 18, 1990, which ruled that claimant has a total industrial disability and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

The employer contends that while claimant may have been permanently partially disabled, he could return to gainful employment and therefore the conclusion by the Workers’ Compensation Board that claimant’s injuries rendered him totally industrially disabled was in error. We disagree. As the Board noted, claimant’s work history involved manual labor only, his education was limited and the occupations surveyed for him required either a high school education or job training. On this record there was a substantial basis to support the finding that these factors, coupled with claimant’s injuries, [699]*699rendered him "virtually unemployable” and, therefore, that he was totally industrially disabled (see, Matter of Kowalchyk v Lupe Constr. Co., 151 AD2d 927; Matter of Coluccio v Aenco, Inc., 147 AD2d 887). The employer’s contentions to the contrary mainly involve questions of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of McCabe v Peconic Ambulance & Supplies, 101 AD2d 679) and this includes the authority to selectively adopt portions of a medical expert’s testimony (see, Matter of Lalla v Astoria Air Conditioning, 156 AD2d 808). The employer’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, 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 Newman v. Xerox Corp.
48 A.D.3d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Smith v. Paul Smith's College
186 A.D.2d 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.D.2d 698, 577 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prouty-v-monroe-contractors-equipment-inc-nyappdiv-1991.