From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 3, 2014
119 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-07-3

In the Matter of the Claim of Carol A. SMITH, Respondent, v. ONEIDA LIMITED et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Wolff Goodrich & Goldman, LLP, Syracuse (Robert E. Geyer of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Donya Fernandez of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.



Wolff Goodrich & Goldman, LLP, Syracuse (Robert E. Geyer of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Donya Fernandez of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, GARRY, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ.

GARRY, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed November 6, 2012, which ruled, among other things, that decedent's death was causally related to his occupational illness.

In 1991, a compensable injury was established to the lungs of claimant's husband (hereinafter decedent), after which he was found to be permanently partially disabled in 1992. Decedent was paid workers' compensation benefits continuously until his death in September 2010, after which claimant submitted a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found, among other things, that decedent's death was related to his work-related illness and awarded benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed and the self-insured employer and its claims administrator now appeal.

We affirm. To demonstrate entitlement to workers' compensation death benefits, a claimant must establish a causal relationship between the death and a work-related illness, but “the illness ‘need not be the sole or even the most direct cause of death, provided that the claimant demonstrates that the compensable illness was a contributing factor in the decedent's demise’ ” ( Matter of Droogan v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 59 A.D.3d 803, 804, 872 N.Y.S.2d 752 [2009], quoting Matter of Imbriani v. Berkar Knitting Mills, 277 A.D.2d 727, 730, 716 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2000] ). Here, decedent's death certificate listed the immediate cause of death as sepsis, as a consequence of respiratory failure. Additionally, a C–64 medical report completed by decedent's physician of 20 years, who most recently saw decedent in June 2010, opined that decedent's death was caused either directly or indirectly by his work-related illness. Accordingly, we find that the Board's decision to award death benefits is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Roberts v. Waldbaum's, 98 A.D.3d 1211, 1212, 951 N.Y.S.2d 590 [2012];Matter of Webb v. Cooper Crouse Hinds Co., 62 A.D.3d 57, 59, 874 N.Y.S.2d 316 [2009] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs. PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 3, 2014
119 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Smith v. Oneida Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of Carol A. SMITH, Respondent, v. ONEIDA…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 3, 2014

Citations

119 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
119 A.D.3d 1021
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4999

Citing Cases

Polonski v. Town of Islip

Block & Masonry Supply, LLC, 173 A.D.3d at 1518, 102 N.Y.S.3d 345 ). Accordingly, "claimant bore the burden…

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

Notwithstanding medical testimony to the contrary, Ploss' medical opinion was supported by a rational basis…