| Matter of Laezzo v New York State Thruway Auth. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01860 [71 AD3d 1252] |
| March 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Salvatore A. Laezzo, Respondent, vNew York State Thruway Authority et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1]
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 2,2008, which, among other things, ruled that claimant sustained consequential injuries as a resultof a work-related accident and awarded workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant slipped and fell at work in 2002, and his ensuing workers' compensation claimpresently encompasses, among other things, injuries to his head, neck, back and knees. Hismorbid obesity has contributed to his knee and back problems and, in an effort to combat thoseproblems and counter a broader threat to his survival, claimant sought authorization to undergogastric bypass surgery. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge granted his request. Uponreview, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, holding that the surgery was causallyrelated to the compensable injuries. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier nowappeal, arguing that there is no causal link between the surgery and claimant's injuries.
We affirm. The employer is obliged to pay for claimant's medical care "for such period [*2]as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require"(Workers' Compensation Law § 13 [a]; see Matter of Spyhalsky v Cross Constr.,294 AD2d 23, 25-26 [2002]). There is evidence in the record that claimant has gained asubstantial amount of weight since 2002 due to the sedentary lifestyle imposed by thecompensable injuries. Claimant's treating orthopedic surgeon opined that claimant's back andknee pain was exacerbated by his obesity and that such could be alleviated by weight loss. Anindependent medical examiner agreed, opining that weight loss would "certainly" help thoseconditions. While material in the record before us could support a different result, substantialevidence exists for the Board's determination that claimant's weight gain was caused by hiscompensable injuries and that gastric bypass surgery "would assist in [his] recovery" (Matter of Bolds v Precision Health,Inc., 16 AD3d 1007, 1009 [2005]; see Workers' Compensation Law § 13[a]; Matter of Spyhalsky v Cross Constr., 294 AD2d at 25-26).
We have examined the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.