Small v. Jo-Lee Household Outfitting Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Small v. Jo-Lee Household Outfitting Co.

44 A.D.2d 738, 354 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5233

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

DecidedApril 18, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 738 (Small v. Jo-Lee Household Outfitting 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

Small v. Jo-Lee Household Outfitting Co., 44 A.D.2d 738, 354 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which sustained an award for a permanent partial disability. While driving an automobile in the course of his employment on January 30, 1969, the claimant was involved in an accident and suffered a cerebral concussion, multiple contusions and abrasions and a severely sprained dorsal spine. The board, affirming the referee, found “that claimant has a continuing 33%% causally related disability ”. The appellants contend that the board’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that, even if claimant does have a partial permanent disability, his current physical problems are due solely to Huntington’s chorea, a hereditary and progressive neurological disease. Perusal of the record, in reference to both of these contentions, does reveal an abundance of divergent medical testimony, but it is well established that when the board is presented with conflicting medical opinions it must necessarily choose between those opinions, and its choice must be affirmed, if supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Grisanti v. Rugby Knitting Mills, 40 A D 2d 1047). Here, the board found multiple disabling causes: permanent injury from the accident and the hereditary Huntington’s chorea. In such a situation, “the apportionment of' causality is particularly within the board’s fact-finding province” (Matter of Benz v. Ralph Racking Go., 42 A D 2d 1006, mot. for lv. to app. den. 33 N Y 2d 520). Since the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, they must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Greenblott, J. P., Cooke, Kane, Main and Reynolds, 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 which sustained an award for a permanent partial disability. While driving an automobile in the course of his employment on January 30, 1969, the claimant was involved in an accident and suffered a cerebral concussion, multiple contusions and abrasions and a severely sprained dorsal spine. The board, affirming the referee, found “that claimant has a continuing 33%% causally related disability ”. The appellants contend that the board’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence and that, even if claimant does have a partial permanent disability, his current physical problems are due solely to Huntington’s chorea, a hereditary and progressive neurological disease. Perusal of the record, in reference to both of these contentions, does reveal an abundance of divergent medical testimony, but it is well established that when the board is presented with conflicting medical opinions it must necessarily choose between those opinions, and its choice must be affirmed, if supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Grisanti v. Rugby Knitting Mills, 40 A D 2d 1047). Here, the board found multiple disabling causes: permanent injury from the accident and the hereditary Huntington’s chorea. In such a situation, “the apportionment of' causality is particularly within the board’s fact-finding province” (Matter of Benz v. Ralph Racking Go., 42 A D 2d 1006, mot. for lv. to app. den. 33 N Y 2d 520). Since the board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, they must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Greenblott, J. P., Cooke, Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 738, 354 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-jo-lee-household-outfitting-co-nyappdiv-1974.