Lewis v. New York State Dept. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities

• Decision Date: 14 January 1999
• Citation: 257 A.D.2d 813,687 N.Y.S.2d 438
• Parties: , 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 274 In the Matter of the Claim of Cora LEWIS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 438

687 N.Y.S.2d 438

257 A.D.2d 813, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 274

In the Matter of the Claim of Cora LEWIS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES et al., Respondents Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

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

Jan. 14, 1999.

Cora Lewis, Stony Brook, appellant in person.

James P. O'Connor, State Insurance Fund (Kay Raybar of counsel), New York City, for New York State Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and another, respondents.

Before: MIKOLL, J.P., CREW III, YESAWICH JR., PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ.

CREW, III, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related disability and denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits.

On November 5, 1996 claimant, a psychologist employed by the State at a day treatment program, allegedly sustained certain injuries to her back while attempting to restrain a 200-pound male patient. Claimant, who did not return to work following this incident, thereafter applied for workers' compensation benefits. Ultimately, the Workers' Compensation Board denied claimant's application, finding that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury. This appeal by claimant ensued.

We affirm. Whether a claimant suffered a workplace accident is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence, must be upheld (see, Matter of Grucza v. Waste Stream Tech., 252 A.D.2d 901, ----, 676 N.Y.S.2d 336, 338). To that end, while Workers' Compensation Law § 21(1) indeed provides a presumption of compensability, such provision does not completely relieve a claimant from the burden of demonstrating that the injuries allegedly sustained arose out of and in the course of his or her employment (see, Matter of Gedon v. University Med. Residents Servs. P.C., 252 A.D.2d 744, ----, 677 N.Y.S.2d 397, 398, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 817, 684 N.Y.S.2d 488, 707 N.E.2d 443).

Here, claimant testified that she sustained certain injuries to her back while attempting to restrain a 200-pound male patient for whom she was responsible. Claimant's testimony in this regard, however, was contradicted by the testimony of the psychologist who shared an office with claimant. According to claimant's office mate, claimant complained of pain in her hip and back...