The Third Department determined substantial evidence did not support the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s shoulder injury was an occupational disease, as opposed to an accidental injury. Claimant alleged his torn rotator cuff was caused by unloading a wheelbarrow, which he did as part of his job filling potholes:
The employer contends that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s establishment of the claim as an occupational disease. Rather, it maintains that the shoulder injury should be classified as an accidental injury and, as such, the claim is untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. An occupational disease is statutorily defined as “a disease resulting from the nature of the employment and contracted therein” … . Significantly, in order to establish an occupational disease, a claimant must demonstrate a “recognizable link” between his or her affliction and a “distinctive feature” of his or her employment … . * * *
Even accepting, as did the Board, that claimant injured his shoulder unloading the wheelbarrow, we agree with the employer that the injury should be classified as accidental and not as an occupational disease. The proof failed to demonstrate that claimant’s shoulder injury was attributable to repetitive movements associated with moving heavy wheelbarrow loads of asphalt or performing other manual duties during his short period of employment as a laborer with the highway department. To the contrary, claimant testified that the onset of shoulder pain occurred during a definitive event at work when he was emptying a wheelbarrow filled with asphalt. Consequently, we find that there is a lack of substantial evidence evincing a recognizable link between claimant’s shoulder injury and a distinctive feature of his job as is necessary to establish his claim for an occupational disease … . Matter of Yonkosky v Town of Hamburg, 2018 NY Slip Op 00586, Third Dept 2-1-18
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE VERSUS ACCIDENTAL INJURY, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S SHOULDER INJURY WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, AS OPPOSED TO AN ACCIDENTAL INJURY (THIRD DEPT))/OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S SHOULDER INJURY WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, AS OPPOSED TO AN ACCIDENTAL INJURY (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENTAL INJURY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S SHOULDER INJURY WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, AS OPPOSED TO AN ACCIDENTAL INJURY (THIRD DEPT))