Claim of Calabretta v. Lanorith, 90 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). · Go Syfert
Claim of Calabretta v. Lanorith, 90 A.D.2d 608 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cruz v. Karl Ehmer, Inc. (nyappdiv, 2001-04-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Cruz v. Karl Ehmer, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
Although that act may not be an integral part of his specific work, it certainly was related to his orderly “departure therefrom” (Matter of Bigley v J & R Music Elecs., supra, at 668 [emphasis supplied]; see, Matter of Grimaldi v Shop Rite Big V, 90 AD2d 608 , supra).
cited Cited "see" Claim of Lawton v. Eastman Kodak Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
Motors Corp., 119 AD2d 955, 956 ; see, Matter of Grimaldi v Shop Rite Big V, 90 AD2d 608 ).
discussed Cited "see" H & H WAREHOUSE v. Vicory (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Calabretta v. Lanorith, 90 A.D.2d 608 , 456 N.Y.S.2d 175 (1982).
cited Cited "see" Carter v. Mobil Chemical Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
Indeed, all that is required is that the medical opinion reflect a probability supported by a rational basis (supra; see, Matter of Calabretta v Lanorith, 90 AD2d 608, 609 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Edith Calabretta
v.
Samuel D. Lanorith, Workers' Compensation Board
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 14, 1982.
90 A.D.2d 608
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 21,1981. On February 10,1978, decedent, while working as a cleaner at a high school, struck his head on a metal locker door. He was dazed by the blow and[*609] sustained a laceration, but continued working for some three months. On May 15, 1978, claimant entered the hospital for tests ordered by his family physician whom he consulted when he began to experience headaches and nausea. A malignant brain tumor was discovered, which ultimately caused decedent’s death on January 5, 1979. On this appeal from a board decision which ruled that claimant was entitled to death benefits, the employer and his insurance carrier concede that there exists a causal relationship between the accident on February 10, 1978 and decedent’s disability preceding his death, but they contend that the board erred in finding a causal relationship between the accident and decedent’s death. A reading of the medical reports and the testimony of decedent’s family physician as a whole, however, reveals the opinion that the accident aggravated or accelerated the progress of the tumor. The board’s decision is, therefore, supported by substantial evidence despite the existence of medical evidence to the contrary (see Matter of Eppy v Daily News, 84 AD2d 599; Matter of Wechsler v Scalamandre & Son, 81 AD2d 713, mot for lv to app den 54 NY2d 606). Although the physician’s opinion could have been expressed more clearly, his testimony, in toto, meets the requirement that it be “reasonably apparent that the doctor intended to signify a probability and that the opinion was supported by a rational basis” (Matter of Cyr v Bero Constr. Corp., 75 AD2d 914, 915). The board’s decision must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Kane, J. P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.