Judges: Kavanagh
Filed Date: 2/2/2012
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Under circumstances such as these, where conflicting medical evidence is presented, “respondent is vested with the authority to resolve such conflict and to credit the opinion of one expert over that of another” (Matter of Hall v McCall, 2 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2003]; accord Matter of Salik v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys., 69 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2010]). Here, the expert opinion credited by respondent was rational, fact-based and made following a physical examination of petitioner and a review of his medical records. Accordingly, respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Meluch v New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys., 80 AD3d 976, 977 [2011]; Matter of Fochi v New York State Comptroller, 78 AD3d 1460, 1461-1462 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]).
Petitioner’s remaining claims have been examined and found to be either unpersuasive or rendered academic in light of the above conclusions.
Mercure, A.P.J., Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.