From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Trickel v. J. F. Judski Assocs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 26, 1998

Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board.


On April 27, 1988, while in the course of his employment as a carpenter, claimant fell and fractured his right tibia and fibula. Claimant's application for workers' compensation benefits was granted and he was found to have a 75% causally related permanent disability to and a 22 1/2% schedule loss of use of the right leg. Thereafter, on December 22, 1991, claimant again was injured when he twisted his lower back while stepping out of a bathtub and bending over to wrap a towel around his head. Claimant subsequently applied for workers' compensation benefits, contending that this injury was a consequence of the 1988 leg injury and the shortening of the length of his right leg. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, finding that the 1991 accident was a new accident unrelated to claimant's 1988 accident or injuries. The Board further found that claimant had a permanent partial disability, attributing 50% to the noncompensable 1991 incident, 25% to the 1988 leg injury and 25% to claimant's prior noncompensable leg injury. Claimant now appeals, contending that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Several years prior to this accident, claimant sustained a noncompensable fracture to, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, his right femur as the result of a motor vehicle accident. It appears that the combination of these healed fractures resulted in a one-half-inch to one-inch shortening of claimant's right leg which, in turn, caused an antalgic gait.

Whether a claimant's disability consequentially arose from injuries sustained in an earlier accident is a factual question for the Board to resolve (see generally, Matter of Barre v. Roofing Flooring, 83 A.D.2d 681). Although the record before us contains conflicting medical proof in this regard, the Board was free to credit the testimony offered by the workers' compensation carrier's expert, who concluded that there was no causal relationship between claimant's 1991 back injury and his compensable 1988 leg injury (see generally, Matter of August v. Chromalloy R T, 240 A.D.2d 966, lv dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 1007). Claimant's remaining contentions, including his assertion that the record as a whole does not support the Board's decision as to apportionment, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Trickel v. J. F. Judski Assocs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 26, 1998
247 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Trickel v. J. F. Judski Assocs

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of JAMES E. TRICKEL, Appellant, v. J. F. JUDSKI…

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

Date published: Feb 26, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 411

Citing Cases

Smith v. Rochester-Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth.

In light of Ameduri's testimony that he was not aware of claimant's prior back injury and treatment, the…

Scofield v. Beacon Police Dept

Claimant appeals. Whether a second injury is a consequence of an earlier one is a factual issue for the Board…