| Matter of Nassar v Masri Furniture & Mdse., Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00088 [91 AD3d 1022] |
| Jnury 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Sam Nassar, Respondent, v MasriFurniture & Merchandise, Inc., Appellant. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Office of Joseph A. Romano, New York City (Mark Du of counsel), for Sam Nassar,respondent. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), forWorkers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Stein, J. Appeals from two decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 25,2008 and December 8, 2010, which, among other things, ruled that claimant sustained a causallyrelated injury and awarded workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant worked for a furniture company (hereinafter the employer) monitoring stock in thewarehouse and making deliveries. In April 2005, while he was lifting furniture from a container,he injured his back and neck. The pain continued to worsen. Approximately two weeks later,while claimant was unloading furniture from more containers, the pain was such that he wasunable to continue working. He did not return to work thereafter and subsequently filed a claimfor workers' compensation benefits. Following extended proceedings before various Workers'Compensation Law Judges as well as the Workers' Compensation Board, the Board ultimatelyruled that claimant sustained a causally related injury and awarded him benefits. The employerappeals.[*2]
We reject the employer's contention that the record doesnot contain substantial evidence establishing that claimant's injury was causally related to hisemployment. A number of witnesses testified that claimant worked for the employer during thetime period in question. Moreover, both claimant and a coworker with whom he was working atthe time he was injured testified that claimant was working for the employer lifting furniturewhen he hurt his back and neck. Claimant and the coworker further stated that the pain continuedthereafter, requiring claimant to cease working. Any inconsistencies in the testimony or contrarytestimony given by the employer presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Klamka v ConsolidatedEdison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 84 AD3d 1527, 1528 [2011]; Matter of Conyers v Van RensselaerManor, 80 AD3d 914, 916 [2011]), and it was not bound by the findings of the Workers'Compensation Law Judge (see Matter ofJones v New York State Dept. of Correction, 35 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2006]; Matter ofLewis v Cambridge Filter Corp., 132 AD2d 802, 803 [1987], lv dismissed 70 NY2d871 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 805 [1988]). Furthermore, uncontradicted medicalevidence was presented establishing a causal relationship between the injury that claimantsustained while lifting furniture at the employer's premises and the disability to his back andneck. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decisions.
Peters, J.P., Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions areaffirmed, with costs to claimant.