| Matter of Rios v Goodwill Indus. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02270 [60 AD3d 1243] |
| March 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Florentino Rios,Appellant, v Goodwill Industries et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, Syosset (Patrick M. Conroy of counsel), for GoodwillIndustries and another, respondents. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Fay Ng of counsel), for NewYork City Board of Education, respondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 17, 2006,which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course ofhis employment, and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits.
On December 24, 2002, claimant was physically accosted by a coworker. Claimant allegedlysuffered injuries as a result and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which wascontroverted. Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim.Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed that decision. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. Assuming without deciding that claimant is correct in arguing that the Boarderred in concluding that there was no nexus between the incident and his employment, the [*2]Board also found that claimant had exaggerated the incident andthat no credible medical evidence demonstrated compensable injuries arising from it. The Boardcredited the testimony of an individual who witnessed the incident and stated that it consisted ofthe coworker briefly putting his arm across claimant's shoulders or chest and making athreatening comment. That witness further testified that, while claimant appeared upsetafterward, he did not immediately leave, did not say that he was upset and did not give anyindication that he was injured. Claimant, in contrast, claimed that he was assaulted and choked,and the doctors who examined him relied upon his version of events in making their diagnoses.Although the Board cannot "reject an uncontroverted medical opinion and fashion an expertopinion of its own, . . . [it] is entitled to reject evidence as incredible, even if theevidence is the only proof offered on a particular issue" (Matter of Musa v Nassau CountyPolice Dept., 276 AD2d 851, 852 [2000] [citation omitted]). As substantial evidencesupports the Board's rejection of claimant's account of the incident, no credible medical evidenceexists to establish that claimant's alleged injuries were related to his employment, and theBoard's decision must be affirmed.
Cardona, P.J., Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.