| Matter of Wait v Hudson Val. Community Coll. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06026 [120 AD3d 1456] |
| September 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Sherri Wait, Respondent, v HudsonValley Community College et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
Sullivan, Keenan, Oliver & Violando LLP, Albany (John M. Oliver of counsel),for appellants.
Alex C. Dell, Albany, for Sherri Wait, respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff ofcounsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Lynch, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filedOctober 25, 2012, which, among other things, ruled that claimant sustained acompensable injury.
Claimant, a secretary, fell while she was entering her workplace and purportedlysustained injuries. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator (hereinaftercollectively referred to as the employer) controverted her ensuing claim for workers'compensation benefits, asserting that she had staged the fall. A Workers' CompensationLaw Judge conducted hearings and reviewed video footage of the incident, after whichhe established the claim for injuries to claimant's right wrist, right shoulder, right kneeand right ankle. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, and the employerappeals.
We affirm. "Whether a compensable accident has occurred presents a question of fact[*2]for resolution by the Board and its decision will beupheld when supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Rolleri v Mastic Beach Ambulance Co., Inc., 106AD3d 1292, 1292 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 865 [2013] [citationsomitted]; accord Matter ofDixon v Almar Plumbing, 111 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2013]). Claimant was oncrutches due to an unrelated surgical procedure, and testified that she pressed a handicapbutton that opened the door to her workplace. The door began closing abruptly and, asshe hurried to cross the threshold, she tripped or slipped and fell backwards onto herright arm. While claimant's account of her fall varied somewhat over time, the emergencyroom physician who treated claimant causally linked her injuries to the fall and testifiedthat victims of acute trauma such as claimant often "don't remember exactly how ithappened." The Board credited that proof and, in so doing, rejected the employer'scontention that a video of the incident established that claimant staged the event.Claimant's inconsistent explanations as to how the accident occurred created a credibilityissue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Poulton v Griffin Mfg. Co., 102 AD3d 1071,1072 [2013]). According deference to the Board's assessment of credibility, substantialevidence thus supports its finding that claimant had sustained compensable injuries (see Matter of McCluskey vCertified Moving & Stor., 106 AD3d 1349, 1349-1350 [2013]; Matter of Conyers v VanRensselaer Manor, 80 AD3d 914, 915-916 [2011]). The above proof similarlyconstitutes substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant did notviolate Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (see Matter of Eccles v Truck-Lite,Inc., 92 AD3d 1175, 1175-1176 [2012]; Matter of Monzon v Sam Bernardi Constr., Inc., 60 AD3d1261, 1262-1263 [2009]).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, with costs to claimant.