MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 10, 2020, which disallowed claimants claim for workers’ compensation death benefits.
Claimants wife (hereinafter decedent) had coronary artery disease that led to a heart attack in 2002, and her failure to heal properly from the ensuing coronary bypass surgery required additional surgeries to repair her sternum and chest wall. She sought and obtained workers’ compensation benefits after a 2006 incident in which she reinjured her chest while lifting a package at work. Decedent underwent a string of surgeries to address that injury and problems involving her shoulder, knee and back that related back to it in varying ways, developed consequential depression, and was eventually classified with a permanent partial disability. She collapsed at home and died in July 2014, after which claimant filed this claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, finding that decedents death was not causally related to her employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, and claimant appeals.
We affirm. Claimant was not required to show that decedents work-related illness was the sole or most direct cause of her death, but he did bear “the burden of establishing — by competent medical evidence — that a causal connection existed between decedents death and [her] employment” (Matter of Bailey v. Binghamton Precast & Supply Corp., 103 A.D.3d 992, 994, 960 N.Y.S.2d 522 [2013]; see Matter of Turner v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 187 A.D.3d 1301, 1302, 132 N.Y.S.3d 183 [2020]; Matter of Pickerd v. Paragon Envtl. Constr., Inc., 161 A.D.3d 1470, 1471, 76 N.Y.S.3d 670 [2018]). Claimant indicated that decedent died after a night of heavy drinking and that a narcotics overdose was suspected, but no autopsy was performed and her death certificate did not list a cause of death. Claimant instead relied upon the report of a physician who, after reviewing decedents medical records and speaking to claimant about decedents lifestyle, opined that decedents compensable injuries had led to pain and “significant emotional trauma” that, in turn, caused substance abuse issues that contributed to her death. The Board rejected that opinion as unsupported and speculative, however, noting that the physician had not treated decedent and that his opinion relied upon a description of decedents pain and substance abuse issues from claimant that was far from thorough (see e.g. Matter of Ayala v. DRE Maintenance Corp., 238 A.D.2d 674, 675, 656 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1997], affd 90 N.Y.2d 914, 664 N.Y.S.2d 256, 686 N.E.2d 1350 [1997]). The Board instead credited the report and testimony of a physician who conducted an independent medical examination at the behest of the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier and concluded that, although decedents death might have been connected to substance abuse issues arising out of her compensable injuries, it could have also been “solely related to [her] underlying coronary artery disease” and that the medical evidence simply did not permit a finding one way or the other. According deference to that assessment of credibility – which was not, contrary to claimants assertions, based upon any mischaracterization of the facts or the law – we find that substantial evidence supports the Boards determination that claimant did not show the requisite causal link between decedents work-related injuries and her death (see Matter of Turner v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 187 A.D.3d at 1302–1303, 132 N.Y.S.3d 183; Matter of Bordonaro v. Genesee County Sheriffs Off., 148 A.D.3d 1507, 1508–1509, 50 N.Y.S.3d 628 [2017]).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Clark, J.
Lynch, J.P., Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.