Claim of Brown v. New York City Department of Correction
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Claim of Regan v. City of Hornell Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Claim of Regan v. City of Hornell Police Department (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Claim of Cerbasi v. County Metal & Glass, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Claim of Cerbasi v. County Metal & Glass, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Guillo v. NYC Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Guillo v. NYC Housing Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Claim of Guidice v. Herald Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
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
Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 24, 2008, which ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related injury and denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.
After claimant became light-headed at work in 1999 it was determined that his light-headedness was caused by cardiomyopathy. He was thereafter absent from work for several months and applied for workers’ compensation benefits, arguing that work-related stress led to hypertension which, in turn, triggered the cardiomyopathy. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed his claim, finding that he had not established a causal link between job stress and his cardiac condition. He appeals and we affirm.
Claimant suggests that the manifestation of his condition at work gave rise to a presumption that it arose out of and in the course of his employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 [1]; Matter of Musicus v Broadway Pastry Shop, 81 AD2d 723 [1981]). He failed to raise this issue before the Board, however, and it is accordingly unpreserved for our review (see Matter of Bond v Suffolk Transp. Serv., 68 AD3d 1341, 1342 [2009]; Matter of Neville v Magazine Distribs., Inc., 61 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). In any event, the presumption applies where an accident is unwitnessed or unexplained and, given that claimant described his accident and provided medical evidence that it was caused by work-related cardiomyopathy, neither is the case here (see Matter of Moltzon v Computer Assoc., 39 AD3d 1053, 1053 [2007]; Matter of Crapo v City of Buffalo, 24 AD3d 838, 839 [2005]; cf. Matter of Thompson v Genesee County Sheriffs Dept., 43 AD3d 1252,
Spain, J.P., Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.