Opinion
February 20, 1962
Present — Bergan, P.J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board denying his claim upon the grounds that the Dupuytren's contracture from which claimant suffers was not causally related to his employment with respondent employer. Claimant, aged 63, had been employed as a handyman and porter for four years with respondent employer. Claimant's duties included collecting and burning trash, sweeping and mopping halls, outside gardening in season, and other tasks of a similar nature. About two years after commencing work for respondent employer, claimant for the first time noticed his hands were bending and getting hard on the inside. In June of 1959 his condition was diagnosed as Dupuytren's contracture, and a claim immediately filed for compensation. It is undisputed that claimant is suffering from Dupuytren's contracture but there is divergence of medical opinion as to whether claimant's activities with his last employer aggravated his inherited predisposition to the disease (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 44), and the board has found that they did not. Claimant asserts that there is no substantial evidence to support the board's determination that his activities while employed by respondent employer did not aggravate his condition. He specifically objects to the fact that in Matter of Rogan v. Charles F. Noyes, Inc. ( 10 A.D.2d 765) the board on similar facts found a causal relationship and we affirmed. It is obvious that all cases involving Dupuytren's contracture are not necessarily compensable. Nor does the fact that the claimant's activities involved the use of his hands necessarily dictate recovery. In each instance it is for the board on the basis of the evidence before it to determine if the necessary causal relationship has been established. As long as such determination is based on substantial evidence we are bound to uphold the determination ( Matter of Palermo v. Gallucci Sons, 6 A.D.2d 911, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 529). The fact that inconsistent results can be arrived at in any two given cases despite similar factual backgrounds is a necessary by-product of this rule. (See Matter of Dresher [ Lubin], 286 App. Div. 591, 594.) In Rogan ( supra) we found that the record contained substantial evidence to support the board's determination that the constant pressure applied to the palms of claimant's hands while lifting and carrying pails and other heavy objects and in working with brooms and mops supplied the necessary causal relation. Here, though the activities involved are somewhat similar, the board has found that "The activities in this employment entailed very little pressure on his hands, if any, particularly when compared with prior employments which involved almost constant pressure." We cannot say that this determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs.