| Matter of Caballero v Fabco Enters. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07284 [77 AD3d 1028] |
| October 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Otilia Caballero, Appellant, v FabcoEnterprises et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Gregory J. Allen, State Insurance Fund, New York City (Kelly A. O'Neill of counsel), forFabco Enterprises and another, respondents.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 30,2009, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accident in the course of her employment anddenied her claim for workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits in February 2008, alleging that shesustained work-related back injuries in June 2007. Following a hearing, a workers' compensationlaw judge credited claimant's testimony that a compensable accident occurred and awardedworkers' compensation benefits. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed anddisallowed the claim. Claimant appeals and we affirm.
Whether a compensable accident occurred presents a question of fact for the Board, and theresolution thereof will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Person v Li MaintenanceAd, 66 AD3d 1063, 1063-1064 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010]; Matter of Neville v Jaber, 46 AD3d1137, 1138 [2007]). Claimant, a manager at a shoe store, testified that she was injured whenshe failed to navigate between a shoe display and a large box and she fell into the box. Accordingto claimant, she missed one week of work as a result of her injury. [*2]While she asserted that other store employees became aware of herfall immediately after it occurred, two of those employees testified that they had no recollectionof the event. Claimant also testified to calling an individual at the employer's office shortly afterthe alleged accident, but that individual denied receiving the call. Indeed, claimant's employmentrecords indicate that she did not miss any work but, rather, worked for several days after thealleged accident, and the incident is not referred to in either her resignation letter to the employeror contemporaneous medical records. Inasmuch as the Board is vested with broad authority toresolve issues of credibility and draw reasonable inferences from record evidence, we concludethat its decision was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Person v LiMaintenance Ad, 66 AD3d at 1064; Matter of Fortunato v Opus III VII Corp., 56 AD3d 905, 906[2008]).
To the extent that claimant also questions whether she received the effective assistance ofcounsel, we need only "note that the right to the effective assistance of counsel does not extend toadministrative proceedings, except in narrowly defined circumstances not involved here"(Matter of Depew v Lancet Arch, 292 AD2d 666, 667 [2002]).
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.