From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vermette v. Utica-Oswego Motor Express

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 7, 1991

Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board.


The testimony of claimant's expert medical witness amply supports the conclusion that the neurological damage to claimant's brain was a result of the head trauma he suffered as a consequence of his fall and the subsequent craniotomy performed on him. Although the expert medical witness for the employer's workers' compensation carrier testified to the contrary, it was within the province of the Workers' Compensation Board to resolve the conflicts in the medical testimony, as well as to determine the weight, credibility and reasonableness to be given such testimony (see, Matter of Gaylord v Gaylord, Inc., 90 A.D.2d 609). Given the medical proof presented in this case, we are of the view that the Board's finding of a causally related disability is supported by substantial evidence and must therefore be upheld (see, Matter of Curtis v Adirondack Trailways, 146 A.D.2d 900; Matter of Rosen v Rose Housewares, 34 A.D.2d 719).

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers' Compensation Board. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Crew III, and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vermette v. Utica-Oswego Motor Express

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 7, 1991
170 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Vermette v. Utica-Oswego Motor Express

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of OVILA E. VERMETTE, Respondent, v…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
565 N.Y.S.2d 604

Citing Cases

Matter of Perry v. Georgia Pacific Corp.

We find that the testimony of claimant's physician supports the conclusion reached by the Board that the head…

Matter of Forrest v. Lumber

Questions of credibility, reasonableness and weight of medical evidence are for the Board to decide (Matter…