Court Opinion

ID: 9718440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:23:54.872587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:59.319877
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion bv
Wright, J.:
I see no need to remand this case to the Board for further proceedings. Whether or not the testimony of *225claimant and her daughter was admissible, and even if we assume the happening of an accident, it does not require a finding that the subsequent myocardial infarction was causally connected. On this controlling issue the testimony of claimant’s medical witness, Dr. Mintz, was manifestly unconvincing. If decedent had an accident, it did not prevent him from continuing his employment. He collapsed while at work six days later. The record shows a previous heart condition. Dr. Castiglioni, who signed the death certificate, testified that it was a natural death. The employer’s medical witness, Dr. Spelman, testified persuasively that there was no causal connection with any prior accident. It is my view that the Board did not err in holding that claimant had failed to sustain her burden of proof. I would affirm the order of the court below.