Opinion
November 3, 1967
Appeal by the employer and insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board dated April 14, 1966 which awarded compensation to the claimant. The board found "that the strenuous work activity at the pressing machine performed by the claimant on the morning of May 5, 1962 [date of accident] precipitated the fresh acute myocardial infarction and coronary thrombosis and superimposed on the pre-existing arteriosclerosis, constituted an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment." The record is devoid of any evidence showing that the particular work of the claimant involved any excessive or strenuous physical effort (see Matter of Dreier v. Gordon Cleaning Corp., 26 A.D.2d 331) and the award cannot be sustained on that ground. The claimant testified that during the week of May 5, 1962, "Well, we were very busy that week and I had to work late each night in order to get the work out." He further testified that customarily he did not work on Saturday; that May 5 was a Saturday and he did work, "Well, because we had a lot of work to get out that day and in order for me to have all the work out, I had to come in on Saturday to get it out." He stated that at that particular time the type of fabric being pressed was new and required different treatment, which he summed up as follows: "So I had to pull the front also so I wound up pulling the skirt all around, which is not what I normally do on wool." A fellow employee testified and while he corroborated the claimant's testimony, he made no mention of any excessive or strenuous physical effort or of any tension. The proof demonstrated that what the claimant did for a short time on Saturday morning, he had been doing during the previous week. It should be further noted that the hypothetical question presented to Dr. Nathan Landau was in part, "In pressing, he stated that he felt pain towards the end of the day on May 5, 1962". The undisputed testimony is that the pain in his chest started between 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning as noted in the board's memorandum. The board's conclusory finding that the strenuous work activity at the pressing machine performed by the claimant on the morning of May 5, 1962 precipitated the heart attack is not supported in this record. Whether a combination of events or circumstances or some other theory of heart accident might be established in this record we are not called upon to determine. The present decision was prior to our reversal in Matter of Dreier v. Gordon Cleaning Corp. ( supra), but we have substantially the same type of finding. From this record, where the claimant worked on May 5 from approximately 8:00 A.M. until 10:00 A.M. there is no evidence to sustain the finding of the board. In this particular type of heart case, there is a narrow line between whether the remedy is disability benefits or compensation. In order to be reviewable by this court, the board must state in clear and precise language not a conclusion of strenuous work, unusual or excessive stress, but the related facts in the particular claim upon which it premises its finding of such circumstances. It is not the purpose of the court to infer under these circumstances what was the basis of the board's decision. Decision reversed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen's Compensation Board, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Gibson, P.J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.