Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Cheryl P. ANCRUM, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed September 22, 2008, which ruled that claimant had no further causally related disability.
Claimant sustained a compensable injury to her neck, back, shoulders and left knee in February 2005. The employer thereafter controverted the claim based upon the results of an independent medical examination in 2007. Ultimately, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that claimant had no further causally related disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, finding no causally related disability subsequent to March 14, 2007. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. It is well settled that “[s]o long as the Board's determination is supported by substantial evidence it will be upheld” (Matter of Gilman v. Champlain Val. Physicians Hosp., 23 A.D.3d 860, 861, 804 N.Y.S.2d 123 [2005]; accord Matter of Dimitriadis v. One Source, 53 A.D.3d 704, 705, 860 N.Y.S.2d 331 [2008] ). Moreover, “[i]t is within the Board's discretion to resolve conflicting medical opinions” (Matter of Pearson v. Bestcare, 48 A.D.3d 862, 863, 851 N.Y.S.2d 288 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 715, 862 N.Y.S.2d 336, 892 N.E.2d 402 [2008]; accord Matter of Bonner v. Brownell Steel, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 1329, 1330, 870 N.Y.S.2d 153 [2008] ). Here, although claimant's chiropractor testified that claimant suffers from a causally related permanent partial disability, both her treating physician of over 20 years and the employer's medical expert opined that claimant does not suffer from a work-related disability. As the Board is entitled to credit the opinions of the treating physician and the employer's expert, we conclude that the Board's determination is supported by substantial evidence and it will not be disturbed, despite evidence in the record which might support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Pearson v. Bestcare, 48 A.D.3d at 863, 851 N.Y.S.2d 288; Matter of Curatolo v. Sofia Fabulous Pizza, 41 A.D.3d 1049, 1051, 837 N.Y.S.2d 791 [2007] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
McCARTHY, J.
MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, MALONE JR. and KAVANAGH, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 08, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)