It cannot be sustained, however, "when it is clearly based on incorrect facts or an inaccurate reading of the record" ( Matter of Evans v Jewish Home & Hosp., 1 AD3d 736, 738, appeal dismissed 2 NY3d 823 see Matter of LaFlamme v S.S. If the Board's determination is supported by substantial evidence, it will be upheld ( see Matter of Lupascu v UTOG 2-Way Radio, 30 AD3d 640, 641 Matter of Gilman v Champlain Val. The Workers' Compensation Board rejected his claim, finding that "here is no evidence in the record as to what chemicals the claimant was exposed to which would have caused his renal dysfunction," and that even if a chemical used by the employer could cause that condition, OSHA records show that "there was no harmful chemical exposure at during the relevant time." Claimant appeals. Alleging that his kidneys were damaged by exposure to chemicals used in his occupation, claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. He now requires regular dialysis and a transplant. While working with certain solvents and other toxic chemicals in his job of painting and packing industrial hoses manufactured by his employer, claimant learned that he was suffering from acute bilateral kidney failure. Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 16, 2005, which ruled that claimant did not sustain a causally related occupational disease and rescinded all awards, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed October 6, 2005, which denied claimant's request for reconsideration or full Board review. In the Matter of the Claim of Antonio Lopez, Appellant, v Superflex, Ltd., et al., Respondents. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.Īs corrected through Wednesday, September 20, 2006 (2006 NY Slip Op 05694) Matter of Lopez v Superflex, Ltd.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |