| Matter of Person v Li Maintenance Ad |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06746 [66 AD3d 1063] |
| October 1, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Edward M. Person Jr., Appellant, v LiMaintenance Ad et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Foley, Smith, O'Boyle & Weisman, Hauppauge (Theresa E. Wolinski of counsel), for LiMaintenance Ad and another, respondents.
McCarthy, J. Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filedSeptember 24, 2007, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accident in the course of hisemployment and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits, and (2) from a decision ofsaid Board, filed July 11, 2008, which denied claimant's application for reconsideration or fullBoard review.
Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits on September 28, 2006, alleging that hesustained injuries as the result of a slip and fall accident at his work site on September 25, 2006.Following hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) determined thatclaimant had not established that a compensable accident had occurred and disallowed the claim.The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision and claimant's request for fullBoard review or reconsideration was denied. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. "[W]hether a compensable accident occurred is a question of fact for the Board,and its determination will not be disturbed as long as it is supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Neville v Jaber, 46 AD3d1137, 1138 [2007]; accord Matterof Fortunato v [*2]Opus III VII Corp., 56 AD3d 905,906 [2008]). Here, claimant maintained that he was injured when he slipped and fell whilewalking down the ramp of a landscaping trailer. Claimant's supervisor and a coworker, however,testified that they were with claimant the day in question and they did not witness claimant falland claimant did not inform them of his injury. Moreover, claimant admittedly worked the day ofhis alleged injury, as well as the following day, and he reported to work the second day after thealleged injury. Claimant's supervisor testified that he informed claimant that, due to a lack ofwork, he was not needed by the employer that day, and claimant informed him that he wasleaving his employment. It was not until the following day, three days after the alleged fall andthe day after he had left his employment, that claimant informed his employer of the injury andsought medical treatment. In light of the Board's "broad authority to resolve factual issues basedon credibility of witnesses and draw any reasonable inference from the evidence in the record"(Matter of Myers v Eldor Contr. Co., 270 AD2d 671, 672 [2000]; accord Matter of Gross v BJ's WholesaleClub, 29 AD3d 1051, 1052 [2006]), we conclude that the Board's determination thatclaimant had failed to establish that a compensable accident had occurred was supported bysubstantial evidence (see Matter of Fortunato v Opus III VII Corp., 56 AD3d at 906).
Claimant's remaining contentions, including that the WCLJ was biased against him (seeMatter of Knight v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 266 AD2d 774,776 [1999]), have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions areaffirmed, without costs.