Sturtevant v. Broome County

• Decision Date: 24 December 1992
• Citation: 591 N.Y.S.2d 631,188 A.D.2d 893
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of James STURTEVANT, Respondent, v. BROOME COUNTY, Appellant, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 631

591 N.Y.S.2d 631

188 A.D.2d 893

In the Matter of the Claim of James STURTEVANT, Respondent, v. BROOME COUNTY, Appellant and Special Disability Fund, Respondent Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Dec. 24, 1992.

Coughlin & Gerhart (Jeffrey A. Brown, of counsel), Binghamton, for appellant.

Ball, McDonough & Artz (Philip J. Artz, of counsel), Binghamton, for James Sturtevant, respondent.

Morris N. Lissauer, New York City, for Special Disability Fund, respondent.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Theresa E. Wolinski, of counsel), New York City, for Workers' Compensation Bd., respondent.

Before WEISS, P.J., and LEVINE, MAHONEY, CASEY and HARVEY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION:

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed August 23, 1991.

Claimant testified that after he had run up a hill and twice around a burning building, and had twice climbed a fence while investigating a fire in his capacity as a fire investigator, he experienced pains in his chest and arms. The physician who treated claimant at an emergency room after the incident testified that in his opinion claimant had suffered a myocardial infarction and that claimant's exertion while investigating the fire contributed to the infarction. This testimony provides substantial evidence to support the finding of the Workers' Compensation Board that there was a causal connection between the infarction and claimant's employment (see, Matter of Cozzolino v. Ford Motor Co., 144 A.D.2d 204, 534 N.Y.S.2d 517; Matter of Underdown v. Treadwell Corp., 89 A.D.2d 661, 453 N.Y.S.2d 109). The fact that other preexisting conditions also may have contributed to the infarction does not require a different result (see, Matter of Black v. Metropolitan Tobacco, 71 N.Y.2d 989, 529 N.Y.S.2d 272, 524 N.E.2d 873; Matter of Gates v. McBride Transp., 60 N.Y.2d 670, 468 N.Y.S.2d 101, 455 N.E.2d 660; Matter of Cozzolino v. Ford Motor Co., supra ). Further, the Board was free to reject conflicting medical testimony ( see, Matter of Curtis v. Adirondack Trailways, 146 A.D.2d 900, 536 N.Y.S.2d 279).

We also find that the Board did not err in finding Workers' Compensation Law § 15(8)(d) inapplicable and in discharging the Special Disability Fund. To obtain reimbursement pursuant to the statute, an employer must show that the claimant had a preexisting permanent impairment that hindered job potential, a subsequent injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and a permanent disability caused by both conditions materially and substantially greater than what would have been caused by the work-related injury alone (see, Minkowitz, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 64, Workers' Compensation Law § 15 [1992 Pocket Part], at 15; see also, Matter of Dellheim v....