| Matter of McCluskey v Certified Moving & Stor. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03725 [106 AD3d 1349] |
| May 23, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of John McCluskey, Respondent,v Certified Moving & Storage et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel),for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filedSeptember 29, 2011, which, among other things, ruled that claimant sustained awork-related back injury.
Claimant, who was employed by a moving and storage company, filed a workers'compensation claim contending that he had injured himself while moving a heavycredenza. Following several hearings and the receipt of medical evidence, a Workers'Compensation Law Judge found that claimant had sustained a work-related back injuryas the result of an accident that occurred on February 15, 2010. Upon review, theWorkers' Compensation Board modified, established the accident date as February 13,2010 and otherwise affirmed. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier nowappeal.
As substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we affirm. Claimant testifiedthat he injured his back while moving a credenza in February 2010—an accountthat was corroborated by several of his coworkers—and physicians who examinedand/or treated claimant agreed that, if claimant's version of the events was accurate, hisback condition was causally [*2]connected to thatincident (see Matter of Nassar vMasri Furniture & Mdse., Inc., 91 AD3d 1022, 1022-1023 [2012]; Matter of Klamka v ConsolidatedEdison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 84 AD3d 1527, 1528 [2011]). Although the employerattempted to call into question the recollection of claimant and his coworkers as to thedate upon which the accident occurred, "the precise date of claimant's injury is notdispositive of any of the issues in the case" (Matter of Klamka v Consolidated EdisonCo. of N.Y., Inc., 84 AD3d at 1529 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).We have examined the employer and carrier's remaining contentions and find them to bewithout merit.
Peters, P.J., Rose and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.