Mulholland v. New York State Dept. of Public Works
| Decision Date | 30 June 1970 |
| Citation | 312 N.Y.S.2d 687,34 A.D.2d 1083 |
| Parties | Claim of Murial MULHOLLAND, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS et al., Respondents, Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert J. McKeegan, Delhi, for appellant.
Herbert Lasky, New York City (Louis Busell, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and REYNOLDS, GREENBLOTT, COOKE and SWEENEY, JJ.
Appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board, filed March 19, 1969, denying claimant benefits.
Appellant's husband was employed as an engineer for the New York State Department of Public Works at Delhi, New York. For several weeks he had been nervous and concerned about an experimental meeting which was to be held in his office on June 1, 1965 with foremen from his area. Approximately one week prior thereto he was informed that the area over which he had charge would be required to release important materials from its inventory stockpile. Apparently he felt that it would be necessary to falsify certain information to prevent dissipation of the stockpiled goods.
On June 1, prior to the time of the meeting, decedent experienced an acute back pain for which he was immediately hospitalized. He expired that afternoon from coronary arteriosclerosis and congenital hypoplasia. Appellant contends that the emotional stress arising from decedent's anticipation of the meeting and his dilemma over the stockpile issue was a causal factor in his fatal coronary occlusion and that she is therefore entitled to an award.
It is well established that a claim of accidental injury precipitated by emotional strain will not be upheld unless the strain involved is 'greater than * * * (that) to which all workers are occasionally subjected without untoward result.' (Matter of Nicotera v. Dorn's Transp., 30 A.D.2d 735, 291 N.Y.S.2d 714, 715.)
The tension to which decedent was subjected falls visibly short of the enunciated standard and involved no more stress and strain than that experienced in the ordinary wear and tear of life. (Matter of Weinstein v. Apex Dress Co., 25 N.Y.2d 947, 305 N.Y.S.2d 157, 252 N.E.2d 634.) Since the board's determination that no accident within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law occurred is supported by substantial evidence, its determination must be sustained (Matter of Nicotera v. Dorn's Transp., Supra).
Decision affirmed, without costs.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strauss v. Freiheit
...result. (Matter of Weinstein v. Apex Dress Co., 25 N.Y.2d 947, 305 N.Y.S.2d 157, 252 N.E.2d 634; Matter of Mulholland v. New York State Dept. of Public Works, 34 A.D.2d 1083, 312 N.Y.S.2d 687; Matter of McLoughlin v. New Rochelle Hosp., 34 A.D.2d 1064, 312 N.Y.S.2d 572; Matter of Cramer v. ......
-
Snyder v. N. Y. S. Commission for Human Rights
...Store, 15 A.D.2d 329, 223 N.Y.S.2d 813, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 711, 241 N.Y.S.2d 844, 191 N.E.2d 901; Matter of Mulholland v. N.Y.S. Dept. of Public Works, 34 A.D.2d 1083, 312 N.Y.S.2d 687.) The decisions should be reversed and the claim dismissed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen's Co......
-
Rackley v. County of Rensselaer
...Compensation Law". (See also, Matter of Wolfe v. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co., supra.) The case of Matter of Mulholland v. New York State Dept. of Public Works, 34 A.D.2d 1083, 312 N.Y.S.2d 687, is overruled to that Claimant's testimony, which the Board was entitled to credit in its entirety ......