From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Shannon v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 6, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County.


Respondent's expert testified that it was "highly unlikely" that decedent's fall while on duty precipitated his myocardial infarction. This testimony, coupled with the other medical evidence in the record showing that decedent's condition was long standing and severe, provided competent evidence to rebut the "heart presumption" created by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-a (see, Matter of Nerney v. New York State Policemen's Firemen's Retirement Sys., 156 A.D.2d 775, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 710). Petitioner has failed to prove otherwise and we therefore agree with respondent that the death of petitioner's husband was not the natural and proximate result of an accident sustained in the performance of his duties as a firefighter. Any evidence to the contrary merely presented a conflict of medical opinion which was for respondent to resolve (see, Matter of Legault v. Regan, 105 A.D.2d 505, 506).

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.


Summaries of

Matter of Shannon v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Shannon v. Regan

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JUDITH SHANNON, Petitioner, v. EDWARD V. REGAN, as…

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 237

Citing Cases

Matter of Walos v. Regan

The Retirement System's physician testified that petitioner's heart attack and heart disease were not related…

Matter of Mazur v. Regan

We find substantial evidence in the record to support respondent's conclusion that petitioner failed to…