From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Claim of Owoc v. Syracuse University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 9, 2003
301 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

91562

January 9, 2003.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 13, 2001, which, inter alia, ruled that the death of claimant's decedent was causally related to his employment and awarded claimant workers' compensation death benefits.

Wood Richmond L.L.P., North Syracuse (John I. Hvozda of counsel), for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and, Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Decedent was employed by Syracuse University (hereinafter the employer) as a maintenance worker at the employer's steam plant. He usually left for work at 7:00 A.M. and arrived home between 4:30 P.M. and 4:45 P.M. On June 12, 1996, decedent worked a full day and returned to his home at approximately 5:00 P.M. His lifeless body was discovered at home by his son at approximately 10:00 P.M. that evening. The cause of death was ventricular fibrillation secondary to coronary artery disease. Claimant, decedent's widow, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits which was controverted by the employer. Following a hearing at which medical testimony was provided, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) concluded, inter alia, that decedent's death was causally related to his employment and awarded claimant workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision and this appeal ensued.

The employer contends that the WCLJ improperly based his finding of causal relationship upon the speculative and irrational medical opinion of physician David Nash and that the Board impermissibly fashioned a medical opinion of its own by agreeing with this finding. While the Board may not reject the unanimous opinion of medical experts on the issue of causation and formulate an opinion of its own (see Matter of Doersam v. Oswego County Dept. of Social Servs., 171 A.D.2d 934, 936, affd 80 N.Y.2d 775), that is not what occurred here. Rather, this case presents a situation in which two qualified medical experts gave conflicting opinions with regard to the cause of decedent's death and the Board chose to credit the opinion of one over the other, as it was entitled to do (see Matter of Maldonado v. Exclusive Auto Body Supply, 295 A.D.2d 868, 869; Matter of Hosmer v. Emerson Power Transmission, 295 A.D.2d 870, 871).

Notably, both experts agreed that decedent's death was caused by ventricular fibrillation secondary to coronary artery disease. Cardiologist Ralph Janicki opined that it was due to decedent's lifelong habit of smoking 1½ packs of cigarettes per day. While he conceded that stresses related to marital, financial and family difficulties may also have played a role, he rejected the notion that workplace stress was a contributing factor. Nash, on the other hand, opined that decedent's death was attributable to his work at the steam plant. Although he acknowledged that he did not know decedent's precise work activities on the date of his death, he based his opinion upon the assumption that decedent's duties that day were physical in nature given his general job description. That assumption was supported by the testimony of decedent's coworker who stated that he worked with decedent on the date of his death and that their duties entailed identifying and repairing water line breaks, which involved, among other things, lifting manhole covers. Nash indicated in his written report that "with increasing effort, there is an increase in the workload of the heart and in relation to this, with vasoactive amines, there can be an increase in blood coagulability and a reduction in the ventricular fibrillation threshold." Inasmuch as we find that Nash's opinion was supported by a rational basis (see Matter of Matusko v. Kennedy Valve Mfg. Co., 296 A.D.2d 726, 727-728, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 504 [Dec. 17, 2002]; Matter of Van Patten v. Quandt's Wholesale Distrib., 198 A.D.2d 539, 539-540), we decline to disturb the Board's decision.

The employer's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Claim of Owoc v. Syracuse University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 9, 2003
301 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Claim of Owoc v. Syracuse University

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ARLENE OWOC, Respondent, v. SYRACUSE…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 2003

Citations

301 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
753 N.Y.S.2d 221

Citing Cases

Mellies v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Ploss opined that this significant respiratory insufficiency was caused by the asbestosis and restricted the…

In the Matter of Claim of Mateo

We disagree. Brief unequivocally testified that, although claimant initially received emergency room…