State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 17, 2015 520446 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of

MATTHEW YANAS,

Appellant,

v

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BIMBO BAKERIES et al.,

Respondents.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 20, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Clark, JJ.

__________

Mraz & Gaud, PLLC, Albany (Lucile Gaud of counsel), for

appellant. 

Stockton, Barker & Mead, LLP, Troy (John B. Paniccia of

counsel), for Bimbo Bakeries and another, respondents.

__________

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board,

filed March 24, 2014, which ruled that claimant did not sustain

an occupational disease and denied his claim for workers'

compensation benefits.

Claimant worked for Bimbo Bakeries where his duties

included, among other things, loading a flour sifter machine. He

submitted a claim for workers' compensation benefits in November

2012 after experiencing pain in his right wrist and being

diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, flexor tendonitis of the
-2- 520446 

middle finger and ulnar impaction syndrome. A Workers'

Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) credited the testimony

of claimant's supervisor in determining that claimant's job

duties did not entail sufficient repetitive action for an

occupational disease and, furthermore, the WCLJ did not credit

the opinions of claimant's physicians regarding causation, since

both physicians failed to establish an adequate understanding of

claimant's work activities or obtain a complete medical history. 

The WCLJ thus disallowed the claim and the Workers' Compensation

Board affirmed. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. "The Board's decision regarding the presence

and classification of a medical condition – i.e., an occupational

disease – is a factual consideration that will not be disturbed

if it is supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Clanton v

Salon Visentin, Inc., 37 AD3d 968, 968 [2007] [citation omitted];

see Matter of Mazayoff v A.C.V.L. Cos., Inc., 53 AD3d 890, 891

[2008]). Here, the Board credited the testimony of claimant's

supervisor regarding claimant's job duties in determining that

claimant failed to sufficiently prove "a specific repetitive

movement suggesting a link between a distinctive feature of [his]

job and [his] injuries" (Matter of Clanton v Salon Visentin,

Inc., 37 AD3d at 968; see Matter of Lumia v City of N.Y., Off. of

Queens Borough President, 21 AD3d 600, 601 [2005]). Further,

since claimant's physicians failed to show adequate knowledge of

his work activities or medical history, "'[t]he Board was free to

reject this less-than-compelling medical evidence,' and its

finding that claimant did not submit credible medical evidence of

a causally related occupational disease is supported by

substantial evidence" (Matter of Phelan v Bethpage State Park,

126 AD3d 1276, 1278 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 911 [2015], quoting

Matter of Cunningham v New York City Tr. Auth., 122 AD3d 1042,

1043 [2014]; see Matter of Jaquin v Community Covenant Church, 69

AD3d 998, 1000 [2010] [holding that the Board "may reject medical

evidence as incredible or insufficient even where . . . no

opposing medical proof is presented"]; accord Matter of Kondylis

v Alatis Interiors Co., Ltd., 116 AD3d 1184, 1186 [2014]). 

Finally, we note that, to the extent that the issue was

preserved, the fact that the WCLJ cited to guidelines that became

effective after the claim was filed is of no moment since the

Board independently reviewed the record and relied upon long
-3- 520446 

established principles, including that a medical opinion

unsupported by an adequate foundation need not be credited (see

e.g. Matter of Eber v Jawanio, Inc., 85 AD3d 1520, 1522 [2011]).

Peters, P.J., Garry and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court