Villa v. New York State Department of Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Villa v. New York State Department of Correction

77 A.D.2d 702, 430 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436

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

DecidedJuly 10, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.2d 702 (Villa v. New York State Department of Correction) 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

Villa v. New York State Department of Correction, 77 A.D.2d 702, 430 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 3, 1979. The claimant contends that the board did not give sufficient weight to [703]*703her medical expert’s testimony. The board stated: "After review, the Board finds on the basis of the probative medical evidence, that claimant did not sustain an occupational disease as a result of the nature of her job. Occupational disease has been defined as a disease which results from the nature of the employment, not those conditions brought about by the failure of the employer to furnish safe place to work, but condition to which all employees of a class are subject and which produce the disease as a natural incident of a particular occupation and attached to that occupation a hazard which distinguishes it from the usual run of occupation. The record establishes that the claimant did suffer anxiety state and pancreatitis but it does not substantiate a claim that it was causally related to claimant’s work.” Resolution of factual issues is for the board and its decision is supported by substantial evidence upon the record as a whole. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, 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 May 3, 1979. The claimant contends that the board did not give sufficient weight to [703]*703her medical expert’s testimony. The board stated: "After review, the Board finds on the basis of the probative medical evidence, that claimant did not sustain an occupational disease as a result of the nature of her job. Occupational disease has been defined as a disease which results from the nature of the employment, not those conditions brought about by the failure of the employer to furnish safe place to work, but condition to which all employees of a class are subject and which produce the disease as a natural incident of a particular occupation and attached to that occupation a hazard which distinguishes it from the usual run of occupation. The record establishes that the claimant did suffer anxiety state and pancreatitis but it does not substantiate a claim that it was causally related to claimant’s work.” Resolution of factual issues is for the board and its decision is supported by substantial evidence upon the record as a whole. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 702, 430 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villa-v-new-york-state-department-of-correction-nyappdiv-1980.