Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied, and these appeals ensued. Inasmuch as claimant did not raise any arguments in his brief regarding the Board's denial of his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review, we deem his appeal from that decision to be abandoned (see Matter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD, 116 A.D.3d 1255, 1256 n. 2, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2014] ). We affirm.
We disagree. It is well settled that “[t]he Board is vested with the discretion to assess the credibility of medical [proof] and its resolution of such issues is to be accorded great deference, particularly with respect to issues of causation” (Matter of Manka v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 123 A.D.3d 1172, 1173, 998 N.Y.S.2d 485 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 909, 2015 WL 3555531 [2015] ; see Matter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD, 116 A.D.3d 1255, 1257, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2014] ; Matter of Roberts v. Waldbaum's, 98 A.D.3d 1211, 1211, 951 N.Y.S.2d 590 [2012] ). Here, Ploss, an internist specializing in pulmonary disease, reviewed decedent's records and testified that decedent's death was directly due to his numerous medical maladies but that his asbestosis occupational disease was nevertheless a contributing factor.
By decision filed July 2, 2014, the Board agreed, after undertaking a complete review of the record, and reversed, finding, among other things, that there was insufficient credible evidence to show that claimant suffered an injury in the course of his employment on February 23, 2012. Claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied by Board decision filed July 31, 2015. Claimant now appeals from both decisions. Claimant raises no arguments in his appellate brief regarding the denial of his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review and, accordingly, we deem his appeal from that decision to be abandoned (see Matter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD, 116 A.D.3d 1255, 1256 n. 2, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2014] ). We affirm. “Whether a compensable accident has occurred presents a question of fact for resolution by the Board and its decision will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Losardo v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 126 A.D.3d 1164, 1165, 5 N.Y.S.3d 585 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ). Claimant testified that following this unwitnessed fall, he promptly reported the accident to a superior and left work shortly thereafter without summoning an ambulance, was absent from work the following day—a Friday—and returned to work the following Monday; he continued to work, including performing heavy lifting, until April 25, 2012, when he stopped working due to pain.
-------- Nor are we persuaded that the Board's decision concerning causal relationship is unsupported by substantial evidence because there was some medical evidence that claimant's injury was not caused by his experience at ground zero. A psychiatrist who evaluated claimant concluded that his symptoms were consistent with posttraumatic stress disorder and opined that this diagnosis was caused by claimant's experiences in September 2001. The Board was free to credit this testimony over that of other witnesses who attributed claimant's condition to different factors in his law enforcement career and his personal life, as " ‘credibility determinations and the resolution of conflicting evidence are within the exclusive province of the Board’ " (Matter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD, 116 A.D.3d 1255, 1257, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2014], quoting Matter of Ward v. General Utils., 100 A.D.3d 1113, 1113, 953 N.Y.S.2d 717 [2012] ; see Workers' Compensation Law § 20[1] ). Accordingly, the Board's determination will not be disturbed, despite medical evidence to the contrary (see Matter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD, 116 A.D.3d at 1257, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 ; Matter of Brown v. New York City Dept. of Correction, 74 A.D.3d 1592, 1593, 903 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2010] ; Matter of Marillo v. Cantalician Ctr. for Learning, 263 A.D.2d 719, 721, 693 N.Y.S.2d 687 [1999] ).
The parties do not take issue with the date or location elements of the statute. Nor are we persuaded that the Board's decision concerning causal relationship is unsupported by substantial evidence because there was some medical evidence that claimant's injury was not caused by his experience at ground zero. A psychiatrist who evaluated claimant concluded that his symptoms were consistent with posttraumatic stress disorder and opined that this diagnosis was caused by claimant's experiences in September 2001. The Board was free to credit this testimony over that of other witnesses who attributed claimant's condition to different factors in his law enforcement career and his personal life, as "'credibility determinations and the resolution of conflicting evidence are within the exclusive province of the Board'" (Matter of Krietsch v Northport-East Northport UFSD, 116 AD3d 1255, 1257 [2014], quoting Matter of Ward v General Utils., 100 AD3d 1113, 1113 [2012]; see Workers' Compensation Law § 20 [1]). Accordingly, the Board's determination will not be disturbed, despite medical evidence to the contrary (see Matter of Krietsch v Northport-East Northport UFSD, 116 AD3d at 1257; Matter of Brown v New York City Dept. of Correction, 74 AD3d 1592, 1593 [2010]; Matter of Marillo v Cantalician Ctr. for Learning, 263 AD2d 719, 721 [1999]).
Likewise, her conclusion that claimant had not undergone 6 to 12 weeks of conservative treatment is supported by the lack of evidence that claimant participated in physical therapy other than in March 2015. Although Capicotto disagreed with Mehta's opinion and concluded that claimant's lumbar surgery was authorized under the guidelines, the Board is vested with the authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence (seeMatter of Oparaji v. Books & Rattles , 147 A.D.3d 1165, 1166–1167, 47 N.Y.S.3d 150 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 918, 2017 WL 4015669 [2017] ; Matter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD , 116 A.D.3d 1255, 1257, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2014] ). We defer to its findings in this regard and find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision.
In reaching its decision, the Board was free to credit Savage's medical opinion with respect to causation over the contrary medical opinion and could choose to accept those portions of Bakirtzian's and Benton's testimony that acknowledged that the February 2015 accident hastened claimant's decision to undergo the replacement surgeries. Deferring to the Board's evaluation of the proof presented, we conclude that substantial evidence supports its finding that claimant's need for the total left hip replacement surgery and the total right knee replacement surgery was causally-related to the February 2015 accident (seeMatter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD , 116 A.D.3d 1255, 1256–1257, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2014] ; Matter of Mallette v. Flattery's , 111 A.D.3d 989, 990, 975 N.Y.S.2d 210 [2013] ; compareMatter of Oparaji v. Books & Rattles , 147 A.D.3d at 1166–1167, 47 N.Y.S.3d 150). Therefore, we decline to disturb its decision.
--------Greenough v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 45 A.D.3d at 1117, 846 N.Y.S.2d 459 ; Matter of Faello v. Federal Express, 34 A.D.3d 942, 943, 823 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2006] ; compare Matter of Krietsch v. Northport–East Northport UFSD, 116 A.D.3d 1255, 1256, 984 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2014] ). The balance of claimant's remaining contentions are either not properly before us or unnecessary to address in light of our determination herein.
By decision filed July 2, 2014, the Board agreed, after undertaking a complete review of the record, and reversed, finding, among other things, that there was insufficient credible evidence to show that claimant suffered an injury in the course of his employment on February 23, 2012. Claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied by Board decision filed July 31, 2015. Claimant now appeals from both decisions. Claimant raises no arguments in his appellate brief regarding the denial of his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review and, accordingly, we deem his appeal from that decision to be abandoned (see Matter of Krietsch v Northport-East Northport UFSD, 116 AD3d 1255, 1256 n 2 [2014]). We affirm. "Whether a compensable accident has occurred presents a question of fact for resolution by the Board and its decision will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Losardo v Baxter Healthcare Corp., 126 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).