Matter of Rasiej v. Syska Hennesy Group Inc. , 43 N.Y.S.3d 612 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: December 22, 2016                   522129
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of the Claim of
    HALINA RASIEJ,
    Appellant,
    v
    SYSKA HENNESY GROUP INC. et al.,            MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    Respondents.
    WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
    Respondent.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   November 15, 2016
    Before:   Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.
    __________
    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.
    __________
    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
    -2-                522129
    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 AD3d 1134,
    1135 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [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 AD3d 1104, 1105 [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 AD3d 1327, 1328
    [2013]; Matter of Hanna v Able Body Labor, 62 AD3d 1200, 1201
    [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
    AD3d 1444, 1445-1446 [2009]; Matter of Schwartz v Hebrew Academy
    of Five Towns, 39 AD3d at 1135). 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 AD3d at 1135-1136).
    Egan Jr., Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
    -3-                  522129
    ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 522129

Citation Numbers: 145 A.D.3d 1332, 43 N.Y.S.3d 612

Judges: Garry, Egan, Devine, Clark, Mulvey

Filed Date: 12/22/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024