Claim of the Estate of Kramer v. Ultra Blend Corp.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Claim of Muehl v. Clinton's Ditch Cooperative (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Scott v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Scott v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Claim of Mayers v. Kings County Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Claim of Bacci v. Staten Island University Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Claim of Dinneny v. Phoenicia Fire District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Claim of Viau v. Walsh Trucking Services, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Claim of Gordon v. Green Bus Lines, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Claim of Scarpelli v. Bevco Trucking Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Claim of Ciprian v. Barbizon Hotel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Claim of Testani v. Aramark Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Claim of Thomas v. City of Albany School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
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
Decedent, a co-owner and employee of a company engaged in the business of blending vitamin products, suffered a fatal heart attack at work on October 11, 1995. Decedent’s widow filed a claim on behalf of his estate for workers’ compensation death benefits, alleging that his death was caused by stress related to the failing financial situation of the company. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that accident, notice and causal relationship were established and awarded benefits. Upon review, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision and disallowed the claim, finding that decedent’s heart attack was caused by risk factors unassociated with work. This appeal ensued.
It is well settled that it is for the Board “to resolve conflicts in the testimony of expert medical witnesses * * * especially * * * where the Board is required to decide whether the expert testimony establishes causality” (Matter of Diliberto v Hickory Farms, 236 AD2d 663, 663 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Traver v Rickkard Constr. Co., 286 AD2d 808, 809; Matter of Gonzalez v Ozalid Corp., 235 AD2d 859, 860). It is “within the Board’s discretion to accept or reject such evidence” (Matter of Morrell v Onondaga County, 238 AD2d 805, 806, Iv denied 90 NY2d 808).
Although claimant’s medical expert conceded that the cause
Cardona, P.J., Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.