Claim of Winns v. Local 1199 Health

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF AREATHIA WINNS, Appellant, v. LOCAL 1199…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 24, 2003

307 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

762 N.Y.S.2d 536

Opinion

92453

Decided and Entered: July 24, 2003.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed December 19, 2001, which ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related disability and denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits.

Joanna Kyd, New York City, for appellant.

Vecchione, Vecchione Connors, Williston Park (Michael F. Vecchione of counsel), for Local 1199 Health Human Services Employees Union, respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Mugglin, J.

Claimant's assertion that her employment as a union organizer entailed writing eight to nine hours per day, as well as heavy lifting for up to three hours per day, was refuted by the testimony of the employer's executive vice president that claimant would fill in 15 to 20 lines on a grievance form twice per month and that claimant did not use a computer or an adding machine in her work. Claimant's treating physician based his opinion that claimant suffered work-related carpal tunnel syndrome on claimant's description of her work. The conflicting opinion of the workers' compensation carrier's examining physician relied on the employer's assertion that claimant did little keyboard work. The Workers' Compensation Board did not find claimant's testimony credible and, as a result, chose to credit the testimony of the carrier's physician over that of claimant's physician.

The record reveals that the Board made an independent assessment of these conflicting medical opinions. The resolution of such conflicts is within the province of the Board and there exists no basis in this record upon which to disturb the Board's decision (see Matter of Ritton v. AT T — N.Y., 298 A.D.2d 821, 822; Matter of Forte v. City Suburban, 292 A.D.2d 738, 739). Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination in this case (see Matter of Paoletti v. Ellis Kustell, 289 A.D.2d 733, 734). Claimant's remaining arguments are unpersuasive.

Crew III, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.