| Matter of Williams v Colgate Univ. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06916 [54 AD3d 1121] |
| September 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Calvin Williams, Respondent, vColgate University et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Stanley Law Offices, L.L.P., Syracuse (Yanci Herboldt of counsel), for Calvin Williams,respondent. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), forWorkers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Peters, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 14, 2007,which ruled that claimant sustained a causally related injury and awarded workers' compensationbenefits.
In December 2005, while working as a custodian for Colgate University, claimant struck hishead on a metal pipe and began experiencing symptoms such as blurred vision, dizziness, andloss of strength on his left side. He visited Community Memorial Hospital that day, was seen bya physician's assistant in the emergency room, and was discharged. He visited the VeteransAdministration Hospital three days later and was diagnosed with a medullary hemorrhage(bleeding on the area of his brain near the spinal cord) and remained hospitalized for one month.Claimant's application for workers' compensation benefits was controverted by the employer andits workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer).[*2]
A March 2006 letter to the Workers' Compensation Boardfrom neurologist Anthony Bragdon, who had previously treated claimant, stated that the temporalassociation and the absence of any other cause was "incontrovertible evidence" that the accidentcaused the injury and, thereupon, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ)found prima facie evidence that the injury was causally related. In June 2006, claimantunderwent an independent medical examination with neurologist Robert Knapp, retained by theemployer, after which Knapp opined that he was "suspicious that [claimant] had a cryptogenic[arterio-venous malformation (hereinafter AVM)] in the medulla that bled" based on the fact thatclaimant had a prior AVM and they are often multiple. Likewise, at a deposition, Knapp statedthat the injury sustained by claimant was consistent with massive head trauma, such as the typesustained in high speed motor vehicle accidents and, thus, he opined that, to a reasonable degreeof medical certainty, claimant's injury could not have been caused by striking his head on a pipe.
In contrast, at his deposition, Bragdon testified that various medical scans performed onclaimant as recently as November 2005 identified no AVMs in his brain. Furthermore, Bragdontestified that a bump on the head causes a greater risk for bleeding in the brain and that he couldnot see any other set of factors or alternative hypothesis for claimant's injury, other than hiswork-related accident. After submission of these documents, as well as memoranda of law, theWCLJ chose to credit Bragdon's testimony and found that claimant's injury was causally related.Thereafter, the employer requested Board review, and the Board adopted the findings of fact andopinions of law of the WCLJ and found that credible evidence supported the establishment of acausal relationship. The employer now appeals.
It is axiomatic that a claimant bears the burden of establishing a causal relationship betweenhis or her employment and a disability by the proffer of competent medical evidence (see Matter of Mayette v Village of MassenaFire Dept., 49 AD3d 920, 922 [2008]; Matter of De Salvo v Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm., 248 AD2d 897, 898 [1998]). To that end, a medical opinion regarding causation must"signify a probability as to the cause of the injuries for which compensation is sought and besupported by a rational basis" (Matter ofZehr v Jefferson Rehabilitation Ctr., 17 AD3d 811, 812 [2005]; see Matter ofMayette v Village of Massena Fire Dept., 49 AD3d at 922). This Court accords greatdeference to the Board's resolution of issues concerning conflicting medical evidence and witnesscredibility (see Matter of Hare vChampion Intl., 50 AD3d 1254, 1255 [2008]; Matter of Berkley v Irving Trust Co., 15 AD3d 750, 751 [2005]),and the Board may accept or reject portions of a medical expert's opinion (see Matter of Baer v Eden Park NursingHome, 51 AD3d 1344, 1344-1345 [2008]; Matter of Bunnell v Sangerfield Inn, 35 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2006]).Here, Bragdon stated unequivocally, in both his letter and his deposition testimony, thatclaimant's workplace accident was the cause of his injury, both because of the temporalproximity and because he had eliminated any other potential cause for claimant's injury.Inasmuch as the Board's decision was amply supported by the evidence (see Matter of Guifarro v Zalman, Reiss &Assoc., 52 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2008]; Matter of Castiglione v Mechanical Tech.,227 AD2d 865, 867 [1996]), we decline to disturb it.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,with costs to claimant.