TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

the Claim of Moscarelli v. Moscarelli Funeral Home

In the Matter of the Claim of Ralph Moscarelli v. Moscarelli Funeral Home, and Special Funds Conservation Committee, Workmen's Compensation Board

the Claim of Moscarelli v. Moscarelli Funeral Home, 55 A.D.2d 762 (1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 16, 1976
Citations
55 A.D.2d 762390 N.Y.S.2d 2231976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15546

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed September 26, 1975, which discharged the Special Disability Fund from liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Claimant, an assistant mortician, had been treated for coronary insufficiency and angina pectoris since 1962 when, in 1969, he suffered a myocardial infarction which the board found to be compensable and for which it awarded him compensation benefits. By subsequent decision, the board further determined that claimant suffered "no materially or substantially greater disability by reason of the myocardial infarction” and, accordingly, it affirmed a referee’s discharge of the Special Disability Fund from liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. On this appeal, we find that the board’s discharge of the fund is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. According to Dr. Martin Bloomfield, an expert in cardiovascular diseases who examined claimant on April 25, 1974 and testified for the fund, a disability related to a myocardial infarction would be indicated by symptoms of decreased pump function, i.e., congestive heart failure. At the time of the 1974 examination, however, claimant was under no medication for pump failure and demonstrated none of the symptoms thereof, and, accordingly, Dr. Bloomfield concluded that the 1969 infarction did not materially increase claimant’s disability. Although Dr. J. D. Matis, a specialist in cardiology who testified for appellants, reached a contrary conclusion, the resulting conflict in medical testimony merely presented a question of fact for the board, and since Dr. Bloomfield’s opinion provides substantial support for the board’s determination, said determination must be sustained (Matter of Lodge v Just One Break, 38 AD2d 999 ). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Special Disability Fund against the employer and its insurance carrier. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Mahoney, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1978: 11985: 119782026peak 1978 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Prince366 N.W.2d 187 (Iowa 1985)
  2. Claim of Sanderson v. Curley65 A.D.2d 641 (1978)

Most recent

  1. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Prince366 N.W.2d 187 (Iowa 1985)
  2. Claim of Sanderson v. Curley65 A.D.2d 641 (1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Claim of Lodge v. Just One Break, Inc., 38 A.D.2d 999 (1972) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list