| Matter of Schmeling v New Venture Gear |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08803 [45 AD3d 1071] |
| November 15, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Marcia Schmeling, Appellant, v NewVenture Gear, Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Christopher M. Whyland, Manlius, for New Venture Gear, respondent.
Mugglin, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 13,2006, which ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related injury and denied her claim forworkers' compensation benefits.
In 2001, claimant filed a claim for workers's compensation benefits, alleging that years ofpsychological harassment at her workplace led to multiple stress-induced injuries. Subsequently,claimant was diagnosed as suffering from, among other things, schizo-affective disorder, bipolartype, anxiety disorder, paranoia, depression and posttraumatic stress syndrome. A Workers'Compensation Law Judge determined that, although claimant requires ongoing medicaltreatment, she did not establish a causal relationship between her disability and her employment.The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the decision, prompting this appeal. We affirm.
" 'It is well settled that the Board is vested with the discretion to assess the credibility ofmedical witnesses and its resolution of such issues is to be accorded great deference, particularlywith respect to issues of causation' " (Matter of Provenzano v Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 30 AD3d 930,932 [2006], quoting Matter of Petersonv Suffolk County Police Dept., 6 AD3d 823, 824 [2004]; [*2]accordMatter of Curatolo v Sofia Fabulous Pizza, 41 AD3d 1049, 1051 [2007]). Here, theBoard considered the medical opinions of four of claimant's treating physicians. Two physicians,who were board-certified psychiatrists, could not trace claimant's psychological disabilities to heremployment, while a psychiatrist who was not board-certified and a physician who was certifiedonly in occupational medicine opined that her condition was causally related to workplaceharassment. When confronted with such evidence, it is within the Board's discretion to concludethat claimant has not shown a link between her condition and her employment. As such, we findthe Board's decision to be supported by substantial evidence and decline to disturb it (see Matter of Lumia v City of N.Y., Off. ofQueens Borough President, 21 AD3d 600, 601 [2005]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.