Opinion
12-22-2016
In the Matter of the Claim of Halina RASIEJ, Appellant, v. SYSKA HENNESY GROUP INC., et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
The Saldarriaga Law Firm, New York City (Victor H. Saldarriaga of counsel), for appellant. Conway & Goren, Melville (Mary Stanton Hornung of counsel), for Syska Hennesy Group Inc. and another, respondents.
The Saldarriaga Law Firm, New York City (Victor H. Saldarriaga of counsel), for appellant.
Conway & Goren, Melville (Mary Stanton Hornung of counsel), for Syska Hennesy Group Inc. and another, respondents.
Before: GARRY, J.P., EGAN JR., DEVINE, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ.
GARRY, J.P.Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed February 5, 2015, which ruled that decedent's death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and denied claimant's claim for workers' compensation death benefits.
Decedent, claimant's husband, was on a business trip when he suffered sudden cardiac arrest and died in his hotel room. Claimant applied for workers' compensation death benefits, which the employer's workers' compensation carrier challenged on the basis that, among other things, decedent's death was not causally related to his employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. While a presumption of compensability arises where, as here, an unwitnessed or unexplained death occurs during the course of employment (see Workers' Compensation Law § 21[1] ; Matter of Schwartz v. Hebrew Academy of Five Towns, 39 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 834 N.Y.S.2d 400 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 807, 843 N.Y.S.2d 537, 875 N.E.2d 30 [2007] ), "[t]hat presumption may be rebutted if substantial evidence demonstrates that the death was not work related" (Matter of Frederick v. Lindenhurst Union Free School Dist., 66 A.D.3d 1104, 1105, 886 N.Y.S.2d 518 [2009] ). To that end, irrefutable proof excluding every conclusion other than that offered by the employer or its carrier is not required (see Matter of Fatima v. MTA Bridges & Tunnels, 106 A.D.3d 1327, 1328 [2013] ; Matter of Hanna v. Able Body Labor, 62 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 879 N.Y.S.2d 622 [2009] ).
Decedent's death certificate indicated that his cause of death was sudden cardiac death due to coronary arteriosclerosis, with smoking and hypertension as significant contributing factors. The cardiologist presented by the carrier reviewed decedent's medical records and testified that decedent's death was caused by a preexisting condition of progressive atherosclerosis, which was totally independent of his work. Such evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption of Workers' Compensation Law § 21, which then shifts the burden to claimant to demonstrate that decedent's death was causally related to his employment (see Matter of Puig v.
New York Armenian Home, Inc., 65 A.D.3d 1444, 1445–1446, 885 N.Y.S.2d 785 [2009] ; Matter of Schwartz v. Hebrew Academy of Five Towns, 39 A.D.3d at 1135, 834 N.Y.S.2d 400 ). As claimant did not present any medical evidence to contradict the findings of the carrier's medical expert and as indicated on the death certificate, the Board's decision will not be disturbed (see Matter of Schwartz v. Hebrew Academy of Five Towns, 39 A.D.3d at 1135–1136, 834 N.Y.S.2d 400 ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EGAN JR., DEVINE, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ., concur.