Claimant [Plaintiff] had been employed by the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] for 33 years. She served as a railroad clerk until 1995 and thereafter as a station agent. Plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for the occupational disease of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that Plaintiff attributed to her performing repetitive job duties during her 33-year employment by NYCTA.
NYCTA controverted the claim and ultimately a Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] disallowed the claim, finding, among other things, that Plaintiff had not established that her medical condition was causally related to her employment duties. The Workers' Compensation Board [Board] affirmed the WCLJ's decision, finding that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a sufficient causal link between her alleged occupational disease and a distinctive feature of her employment. Plaintiff appealed the Board's decision.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, explaining:
1. An occupational disease is "a disease resulting from the nature of [the] employment and contracted therein" (Workers' Compensation Law §2[15]), and "does not derive from a specific condition peculiar to an employee's place of work, nor from an environmental condition specific to the place of work"; and
2. "To establish an occupational disease, the claimant must demonstrate a recognizable link between his or her condition and a distinctive feature of his or her employment . . . , [and] the Board's decision as to whether to classify a certain medical condition as an occupational disease is a factual determination that will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence ... notwithstanding other evidence in the record that could support a contrary conclusion".
Here, said the court, a review of the record supports the Board's determination that Plaintiff did not present sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and a distinctive feature of her employment.
Citing Matter of Yolinsky v Village of Scarsdale, 202 AD3d at 1265, the Appellate Division opined "... it is within the province of the Board to evaluate the medical evidence before it." Considering "the less-than-compelling medical evidence tendered by Plaintiff," the court found that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that she had sustained an occupational disease.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.