Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board filed May 6, 1977. At issue on this appeal is the third myocardial infarction suffered by claimant, which occurred on February 20, 1973 while claimant was an employee of Baronette Lingerie. The board, in affirming the referee, found that the activities of the claimant on the day in question were excessively arduous and strenuous in view of his pre-existing heart condition and did precipitate the acute myocardial infarction with the resultant disability. The board also found that the delay in giving notice did not hinder the employer and its carrier in the preparation of their defense and, therefore, excused claimant's failure to give timely notice. Appellants urge that the board's determinations were not supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates that the employer, through one of its officers, was aware of claimant's hospitalization the same day as the injury, after the claimant complained of illness while being at work. The claimant received prompt medical attention and the employer's ability to investigate was not deterred. The same witnesses were available as would have been available with earlier notice. The proof indicates that the appellants were not hindered in the preparation of their defense. The testimony in regard to the causal relationship raised issues of credibility which were for the board to decide (Matter of Hawthorne v Peartrees, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 961, affd 43 N.Y.2d 683). Substantial evidence supports the board's determination in all respects. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers' Compensation Board against appellants. Mahoney, P.J., Greenblott, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
N.Y. App. Div.
					
							
							
							 (Nov 2, 1978)
							
							Copy Cite
						
						
						
					
								65 A.D.2d 831
								
							Case Information
									  	In the Matter of the Claim of NORMAN POLLACK, Respondent, v. BARONETTE LINGERIE et al., Appellants, and FAIR TEX UNDIES et al., Respondents. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent.
This is a paid feature.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
									Please subscribe to download the judgment.
								
								 Size
									= Directly proportional to the number of citations
								
							
							
							
											
											 Color = Jurisdiction 
												
													 U.S. Supreme Court
												 
												
													 State Supreme Court
												 Court of Appeals
												
													 District Courts
												
											
										
									
								
								 Line Incoming
										= Cited by Outgoing =
										Cites
								
							
						Use AI to get other relevant cases.
							
						
							
						
					
Comments