Matter of Altschuller v. Bressler
289 N.Y. 463, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1170, 46 N.E.2d 886 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's Workmen's Compensation Law, hearsay declarations of an injured employee who is alive but mentally incapacitated and unable to testify can be sufficient to establish a work-related accident, provided they are corroborated by surrounding facts and circumstances.
Facts:
- Nathan Altschuller worked as a hat blocker for Jacob Bressler's company for approximately 18 years.
- Altschuller's job duties included lifting and emptying a 'boiler' which, when full of water, weighed between 75 and 125 pounds.
- On the afternoon of May 9, 1939, Altschuller complained to a coworker of a 'terrible heart-burn' and indicated through signs and words that he had 'lifted something'.
- Altschuller told another coworker he wondered if 'lifting the boiler would cause this condition.'
- Upon arriving home later that day, Altschuller told his building's superintendent, 'I got hurt in the place, lifting something.'
- Altschuller explained to his wife that he had tried to lift the boiler all at once, instead of emptying it with a pail as he usually did, and 'all of a sudden he got a heartburn.'
- Shortly thereafter, Altschuller suffered a coronary occlusion which caused a stroke, leaving him totally disabled, unable to speak coherently, and unable to understand others.
Procedural Posture:
- Nathan Altschuller filed a workers' compensation claim with the New York State Industrial Board.
- A referee for the Board found that Altschuller suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, relying on hearsay testimony.
- The State Industrial Board adopted the referee's findings and granted an award to Altschuller.
- The employer, Jacob Bressler, appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the award.
- The Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) granted the employer leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a workers' compensation award, based primarily on the hearsay declarations of a mentally incapacitated but living claimant, satisfy the evidentiary rule requiring a 'residuum of legal evidence' when those declarations are corroborated by surrounding facts and circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Lehman, Ch. J.
No. The workers' compensation award does not violate the evidentiary rule because the claimant's hearsay declarations were sufficiently corroborated. While an award cannot be based solely on uncorroborated hearsay, the 'residuum of legal evidence' rule does not require that the corroborating evidence independently establish the accident. The court distinguished this case from Matter of Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., where all substantial evidence contradicted the hearsay. Here, the surrounding facts and circumstances—such as the claimant's immediate complaints of pain, his consistent statements to multiple people, and the nature of his work—corroborate his declarations and leave little reasonable doubt as to their truthfulness. The court reasoned that since the claimant is 'mentally dead' and entirely incapable of testifying, his declarations should be given the same probative value as those of a deceased employee under Section 118 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, which explicitly allows corroborated declarations of a deceased employee to establish an accident.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'residuum of legal evidence' rule from Matter of Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., establishing that corroborating evidence need not independently prove the accident but must simply support the credibility of the hearsay declarations. By treating a living but incapacitated claimant as equivalent to a deceased one for evidentiary purposes, the court expanded the practical application of the hearsay exception in workers' compensation law. This precedent makes it easier for claims to succeed when the injured worker is unable to testify, ensuring that a catastrophic injury does not become an insurmountable barrier to proving a valid claim. The case underscores a flexible, fairness-oriented approach to evidence in administrative proceedings.
