Court Opinion

ID: 9877709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:18:28.832332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:22.776015
License: Public Domain

Egan Jr., J.
(dissenting). As the majority correctly notes, although the Workers’ Compensation Board “cannot rely upon expert opinion evidence that amounts to nothing more than pure speculation, the Workers’ Compensation Law does not require that medical opinions be expressed with absolute or reasonable medical certainty” (Matter of Qualls v Bronx Dist. Attorney’s Off., 146 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 29 NY3d 906 [2017]). Rather, when seeking to establish a causal connection between a claimant’s employment and the asserted disability, “all that is required is that it be reasonably apparent that the expert meant to signify a probability as to the cause and that his or her opinion be supported by a rational basis” (id. at 1214 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). As I am satisfied that the expert opinion rendered by Michael Lax was more than sufficient to establish the requisite causal connection between claimant’s occupation as a firefighter, his resulting exposure to carcinogenic materials and his diagnosed prostate cancer, I respectfully dissent.
Although there is no question that “the Board is vested with the authority to credit the opinion of one medical expert over another” (Matter of Pengal v Chloe Foods Corp., 111 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2013]), the ultimate inquiry distills to whether claimant’s *989proof relative to the issue of causal connection may fairly be characterized as speculative. To my analysis, the answer to that question is no. Lax opined that claimant’s 24 years as a firefighter afforded him “ample time for exposure to carcinogenic materials,” which included routine exposures to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons — a common byproduct of combustion— and diesel fumes. Although acknowledging that claimant was never treated for smoke inhalation and filed a limited number of “incident reports,” Lax noted that claimant “reported symptoms on a fairly regular basis after [a] fire[,] including cough, burning eyes[ ] and headache.” While Lax — like any other honest physician — could neither definitively state that claimant’s prostate cancer was caused by repeated exposure to carcinogenic materials nor rule out other possible causes, the record indeed reflects, as the majority acknowledges, “that claimant did not present with any elevated risk factors typically associated with prostate cancer and that the incidence of new cases of prostate cancer in claimant’s ‘age group is well under 0.5%.’ ” Based upon the absence of other risk factors, claimant’s known, long-term exposure to carcinogenic materials and certain epidemiologic studies evidencing an increased risk of prostate cancer among firefighters, Lax concluded that claimant’s “prostate cancer was likely caused by cumulative exposure to carcinogenic materials during his work as a firefighter” and characterized such exposures “as the likely major contributing cause of the development of his prostate cancer.” As the opinion rendered by Lax in this regard signified a probability as to the cause of claimant’s cancer, and such opinion, in turn, is supported by a rational basis in the record as a whole, I am of the view that the Board indeed abused its discretion in characterizing such proof as speculative.* Accordingly, I would reverse and find that claimant met his burden of proof as to the issue of causal relationship.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

 Although admittedly not dispositive, it is interesting to note that, at each administrative stage of this proceeding, one or more individuals credited the medical proof offered by claimant. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge — both initially and following remittal — found sufficient proof of a causal relationship, a majority of the Board panel twice reached the same conclusion and, even though the full Board ultimately reversed and denied claimant’s claim, it did so in a 7 to 4 decision. To my thinking, this lack of unanimity is telling and belies the assertion that claimant’s proof was based upon nothing more than unsubstantiated possibilities and rank speculation.