| Matter of Klamka v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03933 [84 AD3d 1527] |
| May 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Stanley Klamka,Respondent, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al., Appellants.Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
—[*1] Joseph A. Romano Law Offices, New York City (Joseph A. Romano of counsel), for StanleyKlamka, respondent. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), forWorkers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed December 9,2009, which ruled that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers'compensation benefits.
In July 2008, claimant submitted a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging that hehad injured his back on March 31, 2008 while lifting manhole covers during the course of hisemployment. The self-insured employer and its claims administrator (hereinafter collectivelyreferred to as the employer) controverted the claim. Following several hearings and thedeposition testimony of both claimant's treating physician and an independent medical examiner,a Workers' Compensation Law Judge credited claimant's testimony that he suffered a work-[*2]related injury to his back as the result of an accident on March 31,2008. Upon review, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board foundthat claimant suffered a work-related injury, but modified the date of accident to March 30, 2008.The employer now appeals.
We affirm. Whether a compensable accident occurred is a question of fact for the Board toresolve, and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Caballero v FabcoEnters., 77 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 780 [2011]; Matter of Person v Li Maintenance Ad,66 AD3d 1063, 1063-1064 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 708 [2010]). Furthermore,the Board has broad authority to make credibility determinations and to draw reasonableinferences from record evidence (seeMatter of Kucuk v Hickey Freeman Co., Inc., 78 AD3d 1259, 1262 [2010]; Matterof Caballero v Fabco Enters., 77 AD3d at 1029). Here, substantial evidence supports theBoard's determination that claimant suffered a work-related injury in late March 2008. Claimanttestified that he hurt his back while lifting manhole covers on the job, which led him to call insick the following morning. That claim was corroborated by claimant's coworker, who testifiedthat claimant informed him that he had injured his back while the two were working together.Additionally, the medical testimony indicated that claimant suffered a back injury in late March2008, as claimant's treating physician testified that an MRI taken following the accidentdemonstrated a compression against claimant's thecal sac that was not present on a preaccidentMRI and likely was the cause of claimant's increased pain and inability to work. Further, thephysician's subjective assessment upon examination of claimant led him to change claimant'srestriction level from moderate to marked after the accident.
We also find substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that claimant'saccident took place on March 30, 2008. Although claimant and his witness both testified that theaccident took place on March 31, 2008 and the employer's witness and employment recordsdemonstrated that claimant was not at work on that date, the employer's records further show thatclaimant called and reported a work-related injury on March 31, 2008, leading to a reasonableinference that the injury was actually suffered on March 30, 2008. In any event, "the precise dateof claimant's injury is not dispositive of any of the issues in this case" (Matter of Conyers v Van RensselaerManor, 80 AD3d 914, 915 n 1 [2011]).
The employer's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,with costs to claimant.