| Matter of Kot v Beth Ameth Home Attendant Serv. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00773 [70 AD3d 1114] |
| February 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Czeslawa Kot, Appellant, v BethAmeth Home Attendant Service et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondents. |
—[*1] Law Office of Charles J. Siegel, New York City (Irosha Ratnasekera of counsel), for BethAmeth Home Attendant Service and another, respondents.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 20,2009, which ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related injury to her left hip and deniedher claim for workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant, a home care attendant, applied for workers' compensation benefits after sustaininginjuries while attempting to lift a patient in April 2004. The claim was initially established for alower back injury and subsequently amended to include awards for a ventral hernia and aconsequential psychiatric condition. In 2006, claimant underwent left hip replacement surgeryand, following hearings held thereafter, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge concluded thatclaimant's hip injury was also causally-related to the 2004 claim. After the employer and itsworkers' compensation carrier sought review of that decision, the Workers' Compensation Boarddetermined that further development of the [*2]record wasnecessary and claimant was examined by an impartial specialist in the field of orthopedicsurgery. Based partly on the opinion of the impartial specialist, the Board reversed the decisionof the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, prompting this appeal by claimant.
We affirm. "[T]he resolution of conflicting medical opinions is within the province of theBoard, particularly where the conflict concerns the issue of causation" (Matter of Ciafone v Consolidated Edisonof N.Y., 54 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2008]; see Matter of Mazayoff v A.C.V.L. Cos., Inc., 53 AD3d 890,892-893 [2008]). Here, although claimant's treating physicians testified that claimant's hip injurywas causally-related to her accident at work, the impartial specialist concluded that claimant'sinjury was neither directly nor consequentially-related to that incident. Rather, he opined that itwas the result of a preexisting condition involving inflammatory arthritis that may have led toavascular necrosis of claimant's hip.[FN*]An independent medical examiner who evaluated claimant on behalf of the employer and itscarrier testified similarly, opining that claimant's hip symptoms were unrelated to her workers'compensation claim. Accordingly, inasmuch as these latter opinions constitute substantialevidence supporting the Board's decision, we perceive no basis upon which to disturb it (see Matter of Banner v Anheuser-BuschCos., Inc., 59 AD3d 759, 760 [2009]; Matter of Darling v Transport Drivers, Inc., 35 AD3d 945, 946[2006]).
Finally, claimant's remaining arguments have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.
Mercure, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote *: Although claimant's assertionsherein include challenges to certain conclusions of the impartial specialist, we note only thatclaimant waived her opportunity to cross-examine him (see generally Matter of McKenzie v UJA-FED, 47 AD3d 1181,1181-1182 [2008]).