TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Claim of Reichmann v. Christ Church

In the Matter of the Claim of Harry Reichmann v. Christ Church, Workers' Compensation Board

Claim of Reichmann v. Christ Church, 87 A.D.2d 930 (1982)
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
April 22, 1982
Citations
87 A.D.2d 930450 N.Y.S.2d 861982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16453

Opinion of the Court

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

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 24, 1981, which ruled that claimant had a continuing causally related disability due to an accidental injury sustained on May 8, 1979. The board found: “[Biased on the testimony of the claimant and the testimony of Dr. Gollata, that the work effort of 5/8/79 superimposed on a pre-existing myocardiapathy precipitated an acute crisis, a congestive heart failure, and this constitutes an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment * * *. The majority of the Board Panel finds that the claimant has a continuing causally related disability”. Having conceded that claimant’s injury on May 8,1979 was causally related to his employment, the sole issue raised on this appeal by the employer and its carrier is whether there is substantial evidence to support the board’s determination that claimant remained disabled beyond November 9, 1979, the date on which the carrier’s physician testified that he examined claimant and found no remaining signs of heart failure. The record also contains, however, the testimony of claimant’s physician who testified on March 5,1981 that claimant continued to be disabled as a result of the May 8, 1979 incident. Since the board was free to accept this medical opinion, the decision finding that claimant had a continuing causally related disability is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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