Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Claim of Beehm v. Educational Opportunity Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 25, 2000 · Carpinello

272 A.D.2d 808; 709 N.Y.S.2d 221; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5974

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Claim of VanWinkle v. Harden Furniture (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Claim of O'Rourke v. Consolidated Edison Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
the Claim of Jimerson v. New York City Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Claim of Mills v. Penney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Petrillo v. Cooke (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Renteria v. Santino's Café (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Porter v. Bridge (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Claim of Grant v. Niagara Mohawk Power Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Claim of Disarno v. Mattel/Fisher Price, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Claim of Rothe v. United Medical Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Claim of Johnson v. Onondaga Heating & Air Conditioning (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Claim of De Simone v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Claim of Amicola v. New York Telephone Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Claim of Petermann v. Consolidated Edison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Claim of Pegoraro v. Tessy Plastics Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Claim of Lombardo v. Ford Motor Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Claim of Elwood v. K-Mart Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Claim of Evans v. Jewish Home & Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Claim of Sanders v. Nyack Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 16, 1998, which ruled that claimant did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market.

Claimant, a clerical worker, fell and injured her ankle at work in May 1993. She returned to work in June 1993, but found it difficult to perform some of her duties and continued to seek medical treatment for pain in her foot. In March 1995, she underwent surgery on her foot to alleviate the pain and returned to work in April 1995. According to claimant, the surgery did not relieve her pain and, effective June 29, 1995, she accepted a retirement incentive offered to eligible employees. The employer asserted that claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market, making her ineligible for workers’ compensation benefits after June 29, 1995. Finding that claimant’s decision to retire was prompted by her compensable injury, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that claimant had not voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The employer appeals.

Whether a claimant has voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and, if supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Board’s resolution of that issue will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Johnson v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 251 AD2d 920). Claimant’s testimony and the medical evidence of her continuing pain despite ongoing medical treatment, including the March 1995 surgery, provide substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant’s decision to retire was prompted by her compensable injury (compare, Matter of Landi v Carrier Corp., 125 AD2d 789; with Matter of Bahor v New York Tel. Co., 91 AD2d 756). The Board’s decision must, therefore, be affirmed despite the existence of other evidence in the record that could support a contrary finding (see, Matter of Grucza v Waste Stream Technology, 252 AD2d 901, 903).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.