MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 23, 2020, which granted claimants claim for workers’ compensation death benefits.
Claimants spouse (hereinafter decedent) worked as a sheet metal worker for the employer from September 1997 to March 1998. He retired in 1998 due to unrelated medical conditions attributed to his service in the Vietnam War. In 2000, decedent sought treatment for breathing difficulties and was later diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hereinafter COPD). By 2006, decedents condition progressively worsened and he was diagnosed with having severe COPD and underwent various surgeries. Decedent died on November 15, 2017 of cardiopulmonary arrest due to COPD. Evgeny Olenko, a physician who conducted an autopsy at the request of decedents family, concluded that decedent had died as a result of “[COPD], following ․ prolonged exposure to multiple construction related dusts and noxious gases.”
Claimant filed a claim for death benefits in January 2019, alleging that decedents death was a result of his prolonged exposure to various substances during his employment and that he had last worked for the employer. Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) determined that claimant had produced prima facie medical evidence of a causally-related death based upon Olenkos autopsy report. Thereafter, the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier) submitted the independent medical examination report of its medical expert, Carl Friedman. After reviewing decedents medical records and autopsy report, Friedman opined that the pulmonary condition that resulted in decedents death was “directly associated” with exposure to certain toxic substances that he would have encountered as a sheet metal worker and that “[a] causally-related death cannot be denied.” Following additional hearings, the WCLJ credited claimants testimony as to certain of decedents statements, as well as Friedmans expert medical opinion, and concluded that decedents death was causally related to his employment. A majority of a Workers’ Compensation Board panel affirmed and, upon mandatory full Board review, the full Board likewise upheld the decision, agreeing that the record evidence supports the conclusion that decedents death was causally related to his employment. The carrier appeals from the full Board decision.
We affirm. The carrier argues that the Board erred in relying upon claimants testimony as to decedents statements regarding his exposure to asbestos and various other construction dust, gases and materials while employed as a sheet metal worker. Pertinent here, Workers’ Compensation Law § 118 provides that “[d]eclarations of a deceased employee concerning the accident shall be received in evidence and shall, if corroborated by circumstances or other evidence, be sufficient to establish the accident and the injury.” In this regard, “[t]he corroboration required by this statute is not as technical as that at common law” (Matter of Padilla v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 127 A.D.2d 957, 957, 512 N.Y.S.2d 723 [3d Dept. 1987], lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 602, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 512 N.E.2d 550 [1987]). Contrary to the carriers contentions, decedents statements related to his exposure to various harmful substances during his employment were corroborated by claimants testimony as to the nature of his work, as well as Olenkos conclusion that his death had resulted from COPD caused by prolonged exposure to certain construction-related substances (see Matter of Wightman v. Clinton Tractor & Implement Co., 23 A.D.3d 788, 789, 803 N.Y.S.2d 762 [3d Dept. 2005]; Matter of Padilla v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 127 A.D.2d at 957–958, 512 N.Y.S.2d 723; Matter of Levitan v. American Socy. for Technicon, 114 A.D.2d 578, 579, 494 N.Y.S.2d 436 [3d Dept. 1985]). Accordingly, decedents statements were properly considered by the Board in rendering its determination (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 118).
We likewise find no merit in the carriers argument that the Boards decision is not supported by substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence is a minimal standard and demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable” (Matter of Burke v. New York City Tr. Auth., 189 A.D.3d 1987, 1989, 139 N.Y.S.3d 403 [3d Dept. 2020] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 907, 2021 WL 4163695 [2021]). On the issue of causation, “the work-related illness need not be the sole or even the most direct cause of death, provided that the claimant demonstrates that the compensable illness was a contributing factor in the decedents demise” (Matter of Murphy v. New York State Cts., 201 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 161 N.Y.S.3d 462 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Lavigne v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 153 A.D.3d 1067, 1069, 59 N.Y.S.3d 621 [3d Dept. 2017]).
Olenkos autopsy report unequivocally states that decedents death resulted from his severe COPD, which followed his prolonged exposure to construction dust and gases. The carriers assertion that Olenkos report should have been precluded is unpreserved, as the record does not reflect that a timely objection was made, despite ample opportunity to do so (see 12 NYCRR 300.2[d][12]; Matter of Page v. Liberty Cent. Sch. Dist., 188 A.D.3d 1373, 1376, 135 N.Y.S.3d 180 [3d Dept. 2020]; Matter of Napoli v. Con Edison, 169 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 92 N.Y.S.3d 493 [3d Dept. 2019]). We are further unpersuaded by the carriers contention that Friedmans opinion as to causation, which the WCLJ and Board credited, should have been disregarded as speculative. We are mindful that Friedman was unable to directly confirm decedents occupational exposure to certain toxic substances. Nevertheless, given his review of decedents medical history and the autopsy report, Friedmans assessment that decedent would have been exposed to certain toxic substances as a sheet metal worker and that said substances were “directly associated” with the COPD that caused his death was both probative and rational (see Matter of Rose v. Brickel Assn., 159 A.D.2d 782, 784, 551 N.Y.S.2d 1001 [3d Dept. 1990]; Matter of Kavanaugh v. Empire Mut. Ins. Group, 151 A.D.2d 885, 886, 542 N.Y.S.2d 859 [3d Dept. 1989]; see also Matter of Glendon v. 460 Park Assoc., 23 A.D.3d 864, 865, 804 N.Y.S.2d 120 [3d Dept. 2005]). In view of decedents statements as offered through claimants testimony, and the opinions of both medical experts, we find that substantial evidence supports the Boards conclusion that decedents death was causally related to his employment (see Matter of Silvestri v. New York City Tr. Auth., 153 A.D.3d 1069, 1072, 59 N.Y.S.3d 618 [3d Dept. 2017]; Matter of Rose v. Brickel Assn., 159 A.D.2d at 783–784, 551 N.Y.S.2d 1001; Matter of Padilla v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 127 A.D.2d at 957–958, 512 N.Y.S.2d 723; Matter of Lucas v. Kiewit Sons Co., 72 A.D.2d 637, 637–638, 421 N.Y.S.2d 129 [3d Dept. 1979]).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, with costs to claimant.
Ceresia, J.
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.