Beeler v. Hildan Crown Container Corp.

• Decision Date: 01 July 1966
• Citation: 26 A.D.2d 163,271 N.Y.S.2d 373
• Parties: Claim of Hilda BEELER (Fred F. Beeler, Deceased), Appellant, v. HILDAN CROWN CONTAINER CORP. et al., Respondents. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 373

271 N.Y.S.2d 373

26 A.D.2d 163

Claim of Hilda BEELER (Fred F. Beeler, Deceased), Appellant, v. HILDAN CROWN CONTAINER CORP. et al., Respondents Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1966.

Sol H. Sleppin, New York City, for appellant.

Philip J. Caputo, New York City, for respondents employer and carrier.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Daniel Polansky, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for Workmen's Compensation Board.

Before GIBSON, P.J., and HERLIHY, REYNOLDS, TAYLOR and STALEY, JJ.

GIBSON, Presiding Justice.

Appeal is taken from a decision which disallowed a claim for death benefits, the board finding 'that decedent did not fall to his death accidentally, that suicide is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts in this record, and that the presumption against suicide prescribed by Section 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Law had been overcome by substantial evidence.'

The fall, whether accidental or suicidal, was unwitnessed and the board found, inferentially, that decedent passed through an open window on the twelfth floor of an office building to fall to his death on the street below. The still of the window was 36 inches high and directly in front of it was a radiator 32 inches high, extending 10 1/2 inches from the wall. Some two years before, after commencing and abandoning an attempt to commit suicide by drowning, decedent had commenced psychiatric treatment for a depressive disorder and that treatment, which included two series of shock therapy procedures, had continued until the day before his death, when he last consulted his psychiatrist, with whom another appointment was scheduled for the following week. He and his wife had been warned by his physicians of his possible tendency to suicide, although the problem was not considered so acute as to require hospitalization or close supervision.

In urging reversal, claimant points to cases in which awards have been made an sustained on appeal although in each the inference of suicide seemed as strong as in this; but in each of those cases the ultimate affirmance was of a board determination that the strong presumption against suicide had not been overcome by substantial evidence. Here, to the contrary, the board has found that the presumption was overcome and we cannot account as less than substantial the evidence upon which that determination was predicated.

Appellant urges legal error in the reception of testimony from decedent's attending physicians over her attorney's objection and claim of privilege under CPLR 4504. It is clear, of course, that when medical proof of causation of disability...