In the instant case, the carrier's consultant testified that the course of MS is unpredictable and that there are a number of possible causes of exacerbation. He further indicated that exacerbation can occur without any apparent cause and claimant had a progressive form of the disease which could explain her current condition. The consultant could not say that claimant's work environment was causally related to the exacerbation of her MS. It is reasonably apparent from his testimony and report that the consultant was under the opinion that a causal link could not be established between the exacerbation of claimant's MS and her work environment, an opinion which provides substantial evidence to support the Board's finding (see, Matter of Archer v. IBM Corp., 212 A.D.2d 948). Contrary to claimant's argument, this case involves the type of conflict in medical opinion that is within the province of the Board to resolve, particularly in cases where the Board must determine whether the medical evidence establishes causality (see, Matter Panagiotatos v. Eastman Kodak Co., 222 A.D.2d 877, 878). ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately concluded that claimant's condition was unrelated to the July 1992 chemical exposure at work, prompting this appeal by claimant. The testimony of the employer's occupational medicine expert and the report of its pulmonary expert provide substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant's current medical problems were not causally related to her work (see, Matter of Berger v. New York Post, 217 A.D.2d 764; Matter of Archer v. IBM Corp., 212 A.D.2d 948; Matter of Karatas v. Eastman Kodak Co., 189 A.D.2d 959). While claimant presented expert medical evidence that her condition is causally related to her employment, "it is well settled that resolution of any conflict in medical testimony on the issue of causation is within the province of the Board"; (Matter of Becker v. Stryco Constr. Co., 252 A.D.2d 843, 843; see,Matter of Panagiotatos v. Eastman Kodak Co., 222 A.D.2d 877). Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

We find no basis to reverse the Board's decision that the claim was untimely. Contrary to claimant's assertions, the record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that her injuries were the result of an accident ( see, Matter of Cooley v. New York State Police, 158 A.D.2d 828; Matter of Silverman v. Little W. Mfg. Co., 20 A.D.2d 612; cf., Matter of Archer v. IBM Corp., 212 A.D.2d 948). The claim form references an accident and claimant described experiencing sudden and severe pain as the result of the December 14, 1987 incident. This is corroborated by the physicians' medical reports which consistently relate claimant's injuries to an accident.