IN RE: the Claim of Michael DIPIPPO (2024)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 7, 2022, which, among other things, disallowed claimant's request to amend his claim to include the consequential amputation of his right leg.

As the result of an August 2006 work-related fall, claimant has an established claim for injuries to his right ribs, right elbow, both hands, left foot, left leg and face, which subsequently was amended to include, among other injuries, consequential right leg deep vein thrombosis and obesity.  Claimant underwent an above-the-knee amputation of his right leg in 2014 and underwent a similar amputation of his left leg in 2018.  In the interim, claimant pro se sought to amend his claim to include the consequential amputation of his right leg “caused by arterial clot/hypercoagulable condition/infection caused by obesity/sedentary lifestyle.”  Ultimately, the Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding that the medical proof adduced was insufficient to establish the requisite causal nexus between the initial work-related injury for which the claim was established and the subsequently alleged consequential injury.  This appeal by claimant ensued.

We affirm.  “Whether a subsequent disability arose consequentially from an existing compensable injury is a factual question for resolution by the Board, and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Allen v. CPP–Syracuse, Inc., 194 A.D.3d 1278, 1279, 149 N.Y.S.3d 319 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Matter of Brown v. Laboratory Corp. of Am., 222 A.D.3d 1127, 1131, 201 N.Y.S.3d 578 [3d Dept. 2023];  Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC, 198 A.D.3d 1060, 1061, 155 N.Y.S.3d 228 [3d Dept. 2021]).  “[A]s the party seeking benefits, claimant bears the burden of establishing, by competent medical evidence, a causal connection or relationship between [his] employment and the claimed disability” (Matter of Blanch v. Delta Air Lines, 204 A.D.3d 1203, 1205, 167 N.Y.S.3d 204 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  accord Matter of Brown v. Laboratory Corp. of Am., 222 A.D.3d at 1131, 201 N.Y.S.3d 578).  In this regard, “the Board is vested with the authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions and to draw reasonable inferences from [the] record evidence” (Matter of Brennan v. Village of Johnson City, 213 A.D.3d 1058, 1060, 183 N.Y.S.3d 618 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  accord Matter of Brown v. Laboratory Corp. of Am., 222 A.D.3d at 1131, 201 N.Y.S.3d 578).  Although “the Workers’ Compensation Law does not require that medical opinions be expressed with absolute or reasonable medical certainty,” such proof nonetheless “must signify a probability of the underlying cause that is supported by a rational basis and not be based upon a general expression of possibility” (Matter of Tucker v. City of Plattsburgh Fire Dept., 153 A.D.3d 984, 985, 986, 59 N.Y.S.3d 609 [3d Dept. 2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 906, 2017 WL 5616040 [2017];  see Matter of Johnson v. Borg Warner, Inc., 186 A.D.3d 1772, 1773, 129 N.Y.S.3d 206 [3d Dept. 2020]).

The crux of claimant's argument upon appeal is that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the Board failed to consider claimant's practical experience (gleaned from his multiple medical procedures, years of treatment and online research) and resulting opinion regarding the cause and origin of his right leg amputation.  “A witness may testify as an expert if it is shown that he or she is skilled in the profession or field to which the subject relates and that such skill was acquired from study, experience or observation” (Zarnoch v. Williams, 83 A.D.3d 1373, 1373, 919 N.Y.S.2d 694 [4th Dept. 2011] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 708, 2011 WL 4027425 [2011]).  Stated differently, in order to qualify as an expert, claimant needed to establish that he “possessed the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” (id. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted];  see Shattuck v. Anain, 174 A.D.3d 1339, 1340, 103 N.Y.S.3d 733 [4th Dept. 2019]).

Although there is little question that claimant has an opinion as to the cause of the amputation of his right leg, the fact remains that claimant's independent analysis is insufficient to establish the required causal connection, as he simply fails to qualify as a medical expert (see Chase v. Cayuga Med. Ctr. at Ithaca, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 990, 991, 769 N.Y.S.2d 311 [3d Dept. 2003]).  Beyond that, the record – at best – demonstrates that it was “possible” or “plausible” that certain clotting disorders “could” have led to the amputation of claimant's right leg, and such generalized statements are similarly insufficient to meet claimant's burden of proof (see Matter of Morgan v. Kinray, Inc., 226 A.D.3d 1288, 1290–1291, 209 N.Y.S.3d 236 [3d Dept. 2024];  Matter of Johnson v. Borg Warner, Inc., 186 A.D.3d at 1773, 129 N.Y.S.3d 206;  Matter of Cartafalsa v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 175 A.D.3d 1762, 1763, 108 N.Y.S.3d 550 [3d Dept. 2019]).  Accordingly, we find that the Board's decision disallowing claimant's request to further amend his claim is supported by substantial evidence.  Claimant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.

Clark, J.P., Aarons, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.