Calendar Date: April 23, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Aarons, Rumsey andPritzker, JJ.__________Weiss, Wexler & Wornow, PC, New York City (J. Evan Perigoeof counsel), for appellants.The Platta Law Firm, PLLC, New York City (Pawel P.Wierzbicki of counsel), for Antoni Pilacik, respondent.Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York City(Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers’ Compensation Board,respondent.__________Pritzker, J.Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers’ CompensationBoard, filed April 27, 2016, which ruled that claimant sustaineda work-related injury and awarded him workers’ compensationbenefits, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed July 13,2016, which denied the application of the employer and itsworkers’ compensation carrier for reconsideration and/or fullBoard review.Claimant, a painter, applied for workers’ compensationbenefits, alleging that he was injured when he fell off of ascaffolding while working. The employer and its workers’compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as thecarrier) controverted the claim, contending that claimant failedto provide timely notice thereof and did not suffer a compensableaccident. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judgeestablished the claim for a subdural hematoma of the head andinjuries to claimant’s neck and back. Upon review, the Workers’Compensation Board affirmed. The Board subsequently denied thecarrier’s request for reconsideration and/or full Board review.The carrier appeals from both decisions.1We affirm. Regarding whether claimant provided propernotice, he testified that, on May 1, 2014, he fell off of aseven-foot scaffolding while working and struck the left side ofhis head and body on the floor. He further testified that hetold his employer’s owner about the fall in person on the day ithappened and showed him his injuries. According to claimant, hewas sent home that day and returned to work 12 days later andcontinued working until July 21, 2014. In contrast, the ownertestified that claimant never informed him or anyone else that hehad fallen off the scaffolding and that claimant did not miss anytime from work between May 1, 2014 to July 21, 2014. The Boardexpressly credited claimant’s testimony over that of the ownerand, inasmuch as “resolution of the sufficiency of a claimant’soral notice is a matter within the exclusive province of theBoard” (Matter of Pisarek v Utica Cutlery, 26 AD3d 619, 620[2006]; see Matter of McCarthy v Verizon Wireless, 83 AD3d 1352,1353 [2011]), substantial evidence supports a finding thatclaimant provided adequate notice of the accident.As to the establishment of the claim, “[w]hether acompensable accident has occurred presents a question of fact forresolution by the Board and its decision will be upheld whensupported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Rolleri v MasticBeach Ambulance Co., Inc., 106 AD3d 1292, 1292 [2013], lv denied21 NY3d 865 [2013]; accord Matter of Oathout v Averill Park Cent.Sch., 142 AD3d 749, 750 [2016]). Initially, we note thatclaimant’s original EC-3 claim form seeking benefits, as well asmany of his medical records, referenced April 30, 2014 as thedate of the alleged accident. He subsequently testified that theaccident occurred on May 1, 2014 and an amended EC-3 was filedreferencing that date. Although the owner testified that hisrecords reflect that claimant was not working at the locationreferenced by claimant on May 1, 2014, those records are not inthe record. Moreover, the carrier argues on appeal that claimantchanged the date because he did not work on April 30, 2014, butthere is no evidence in the record to support this claim. TheBoard ultimately found that the accident occurred on May 1, 2014,and we will not interfere, as any credibility issues presented bythe discrepancies in the date and location of the alleged fallwere for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Jaquin v CommunityCovenant Church, 69 AD3d 998, 999-1000 [2010]).Claimant testified that he returned to work 12 days afterhis fall and continued working until July 21, 2014. On thatdate, claimant experienced a severe headache, was disoriented,had difficulties with his balance and could not speak clearly.Claimant went to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with alarge subdural hematoma that required a surgical procedure.Claimant’s treating neurologist opined that the subdural hematomawas causally-related to claimant’s fall from the scaffolding.According to the neurologist, the two-month-plus delay on theonset of symptoms of the hematoma was typical of such injuries.The hospital’s consulting physician also opined that the subduralhematoma was causally-related to claimant’s fall. Theneurologist who performed an independent medical examination ofclaimant and reviewed his medical records on behalf of thecarrier similarly opined in a written report that there is acausal relationship between claimant’s injuries and his fall,although at his deposition he testified that the injuries “may becausally related.” Finally, an orthopedist who performed anindependent medical examination of claimant on behalf of thecarrier found evidence of injuries to claimant’s neck, chest,left shoulder and back that were causally-related to his fall,but that the injuries had resolved at the time of theexamination. Inasmuch as “the Board has broad authority to makecredibility determinations and to draw reasonable inferences fromrecord evidence” (Matter of Klamka v Consolidated Edison Co. ofN.Y., Inc., 84 AD3d 1527, 1528 [2011]; accord Matter ofCicciarelli v Westchester Health Care Corp., 86 AD3d 733, 734[2011]), its finding that claimant established that a workplaceaccident had occurred on May 1, 2014 is supported by substantialevidence and will not be disturbed.2 The carrier’s remainingclaims, to the extent not specifically addressed, have beenconsidered and found to be without merit.McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
