From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Knopka v. Walker Weighing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

October 24, 1967


Appeal by employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board which affirmed an award to claimant. Claimant was employed as a scaleman weighing bags of coffee at a pier in New York City. On June 30, 1964 at approximately 10:30 A.M., while doing his work, claimant was "rapped in the head" with a beam of the scale. This metal beam was over seven feet long and weighed 50 to 60 pounds. About an hour later, after leaving the pier, claimant passed out in a friend's car. He was taken to the hospital in a convulsive state. He has subsequently suffered from such seizures and his attending physician's diagnosis was post-traumatic epilepsy. The only issue raised on appeal is that there is no substantial evidence of causal relation. In support of this contention appellants cite contrary medical opinion, inconsistent history in the hospital record and the apparent lack of visible injury from the blow to the head. The board found causal relation between the occurrence of June 30, 1964 and claimant's post-traumatic epilepsy. Claimant denied any symptoms prior to June 30, 1964 and the attending physician did not recall such a history and did not receive any such history from claimant. The doctor also testified that even if no visible injury to claimant's head was present, and he could not recall whether there was any or not, this was still consistent with this diagnosis and conclusions. The conflicting evidence and medical opinion gave rise to issues of fact for the board to determine. The record before us contains substantial evidence to sustain the board's findings. Appellants also object to part of the hypothetical question asked the claimant's doctor. Reading the doctor's testimony in light of the entire record any possible inaccuracy occasioned by the language used in the hypothetical question is not sufficiently material to require reversal and it appears clear that neither the doctor nor the board relied upon the language in question as a basis for their determination. (See Matter of Maklary v. Sullivan Milk Co., 28 A.D.2d 763, mot. for lv. to app. den. 20 N.Y.2d 643.) Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen's Compensation Board. Gibson, P.J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.


Summaries of

Matter of Knopka v. Walker Weighing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 24, 1967
28 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Matter of Knopka v. Walker Weighing Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of PETER KNOPKA, Respondent, v. WALKER WEIGHING…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 24, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)