From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bishop v. Remlap Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 5, 1992
181 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

March 5, 1992

Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board.


The medical evidence presented establishes that, prior to his injury of August 5, 1988, claimant had a congenital narrowing of his spinal canal in the lower portion of his back. Although the medical evidence also reveals that this condition made claimant's injury materially worse, it cannot be said on this record that the Workers' Compensation Board erred in failing to find that the congenital condition "[was] or [was] likely to be a hindrance or obstacle to employment" (Workers' Compensation Law § 15 [b]). Contrary to the employer's contention, the Board did not disregard the medical evidence; rather, it determined that such evidence did not prove that the condition met the language of the statute such as to cause liability on the part of the Special Funds Conservation Committee.

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Bishop v. Remlap Construction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 5, 1992
181 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Bishop v. Remlap Construction

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of BOB G. BISHOP, Respondent, v. REMLAP…

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

Date published: Mar 5, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 593

Citing Cases

Matter of Saunders v. Pepsi Cola

Notably, Richard Dobson, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation, rendered a report dated July…

Matter of Brigandi v. Town Country Linoleum

In order to obtain reimbursement pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), "an employer must show…