| Matter of Eccles v Truck-Lite, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01400 [92 AD3d 1175] |
| February 23, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim Daryl E. Eccles,Respondent, v Truck-Lite, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), forWorkers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed September 9,2010, which ruled that claimant sustained an accidental injury in the course of his employmentand awarded workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant sustained injuries to his head when he fell from his chair while at work. Claimantthereafter sought workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its workers' compensationcarrier controverted the claim, arguing that the accident occurred as a result of anon-work-related medical condition. The Workers' Compensation Board determined thatclaimant's accident and injuries were not due to his preexisting diabetic condition and awardedbenefits. The employer and its carrier now appeal.
The record in this case clearly presents conflicting evidence regarding the cause of claimant'sfall. However, the Board's decision reflects that it considered all of the conflicting evidence and,ultimately, credited that which indicated that claimant did not have a hypoglycemic episodeprecipitating his fall and injury, and concluded that the presumption of compensability [*2]pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 21 had not beenrebutted. Inasmuch as the Board is vested with the exclusive authority to evaluate witnesscredibility and to credit the opinion of one medical expert over that of another, we will notdisturb its decision despite the existence of evidence that would support a contrary result (see Matter of Pappas v State Univ. of N.Y.at Binghamton, 53 AD3d 941, 943 [2008]; Matter of Scalzo v St. Joseph'sHosp., 297 AD2d 883, 884 [2002]). Similarly, we will not disturb the Board's implicitcredibility determination leading to a rejection of the argument by the employer and its carrierthat the claim should be denied based upon a violation of Workers' Compensation Law §114-a (see Matter of Dory v New YorkState Elec. & Gas Corp., 64 AD3d 848, 848 [2009]; Matter of Potter v Curtis Lbr. Co., Inc., 10 AD3d 819, 820 [2004]).
Mercure, A.P.J., Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.