IN RE: the Claim of Cecilia CADORNIGA-DOEING

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: the Claim of Cecilia CADORNIGA-DOEING, Appellant, v. NSH/LONG ISLAND JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Decided: June 28, 2007

Before:  CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, MUGGLIN, ROSE and LAHTINEN, JJ. Cecilia Cadorniga-Doeing, New York City, appellant pro se. Weiss, Wexler & Wornow, P.C., New York City (Matthew E. Weerth of counsel), for NSH/Long Island Jewish Health System and another, respondents.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 2, 2006, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant's lost earnings subsequent to September 10, 2003 were not causally related to her work disability.

Claimant, an accounts receivable clerk, began receiving workers' compensation benefits after she fell at work in December 2002 and injured her head, neck, back and shoulders.   A Workers' Compensation Law Judge subsequently determined, and upon review the Workers' Compensation Board agreed, that claimant's lost earnings subsequent to September 10, 2003 were not attributable to her work disability.   Claimant now appeals, disputing that finding.

We affirm.   The workers' compensation carrier's consulting physician found that claimant had no disability upon examining her on May 27, 2003.   Claimant's treating physician cleared her to resume working as tolerated on September 10, 2003.   Two days after that clearance, on September 12, 2003, a disability certificate from claimant's treating physician's office indicated that claimant was totally incapacitated and unable to return to work due to injuries that she sustained in an unrelated motor vehicle accident.   Accordingly, notwithstanding the existence of medical evidence which could arguably lead to a contrary conclusion, the record contains substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that claimant's lost earnings subsequent to September 10, 2003 were not causally related to her work disability (see generally Matter of Millner v. Cablevision, 2 A.D.3d 1146, 768 N.Y.S.2d 666 [2003];  Matter of Hambly v. Big V Supermarkets, 254 A.D.2d 550, 678 N.Y.S.2d 798 [1998] ).

Claimant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been considered and found to be without merit.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

MUGGLIN, J.

CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, ROSE and LAHTINEN, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard