| Matter of Richman v NYS Unified Ct. Sys. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00082 [91 AD3d 1014] |
| Jnury 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Vanessa Richman,Respondent, v NYS Unified Court System et al., Appellants. Workers' CompensationBoard, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Felice Sontupe of counsel), forWorkers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed August 18,2010, which ruled that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers'compensation benefits.
On August 10, 2007, claimant, a court reporter, was found unconscious at her workplace andrushed to a local hospital, where she was diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by aruptured basilar artery aneurysm. Although claimant survived, she apparently remains unable tocommunicate. A workers' compensation claim subsequently was filed on her behalf, and theemployer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as theemployer) controverted the claim, asserting that the ruptured aneurysm was not related toclaimant's employment. Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafterWCLJ) found that the employer did not overcome the presumption of compensability set forth inWorkers' Compensation Law § 21 (1). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed theWCLJ's [*2]decision, prompting this appeal by the employer.
We affirm. Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1), a presumption ofcompensability exists where, as here, an unwitnessed or unexplained injury occurs during thecourse of the affected worker's employment (see Matter of Brown v Clifton Recycling, 1 AD3d 735, 735[2003]). "The employer may overcome the presumption by presenting substantial evidence to thecontrary" (Matter of Steadman v AlbanyCounty, 84 AD3d 1649, 1650 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Here, we find no basis upon which to disturb the Board's conclusion that the employer didnot present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption. The record establishes that, prior toclaimant's collapse, she was under considerable stress at work and her workplace was loud andoverheated. While the employer's expert opined that claimant's ruptured aneurysm was unrelatedto her employment, the Board agreed with the WCLJ that the expert's report and testimony werenot credible—in large measure because he was evasive when questioned as to whetherwork-induced stress could raise a person's blood pressure high enough to cause an aneurysm torupture. Notably, the expert acknowledged that high blood pressure could be a factor in therupture of an aneurysm and conceded that he did not know what claimant's blood pressure was atthe time the rupture occurred. Contrary to the employer's argument, the Board, which "is the solearbiter of witness credibility" (Matter ofHammes v Sunrise Psychiatric Clinic, Inc., 66 AD3d 1252, 1252 [2009]), was notrequired to wholly credit the expert's opinion on this point simply because it was the only expertproof presented (see Matter of Musa v Nassau County Police Dept., 276 AD2d 851, 852[2000]). The employer's remaining arguments on this point, to the extent not specificallyaddressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Spain, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.