## Facts

- Nathan Altschuller was employed for about 18 years by Jacob Bressler (doing business as Bressler Cap Co.) as a blocker of hats and caps.
- The work sometimes required moving and lifting a heavy boiler used in the shop.
- On or about May 9, 1939, Altschuller attempted to lift the boiler at work and was suddenly overcome by severe discomfort described as “heartburn.”
- After the episode, Altschuller suffered a serious medical event diagnosed as a coronary occlusion, followed by paralysis and aphasia, leaving him totally disabled and unable to speak or understand speech.
- Because of the aphasia, Altschuller could not testify at the workers’ compensation hearing and could not be cross-examined.
- The proof of what happened at the moment of injury therefore relied in part on statements Altschuller made shortly after the occurrence, including a statement he dictated to a co-worker who was the employer’s brother.
- No witness actually observed the lifting incident itself, but other testimony described Altschuller’s condition and complaints immediately afterward and circumstances consistent with the claimed exertion at work.
- Altschuller’s wife testified about his condition and statements when he returned home after the episode.
- Medical testimony was offered on causation; the Board credited evidence that the exertion from lifting could precipitate the coronary occlusion and resulting disability, despite conflicting medical views.
- The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that Altschuller sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment and made an award for total disability.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the award, and Bressler appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a workers’ compensation proceeding under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 118, the Board may treat a living but incapacitated claimant’s hearsay declarations as probative evidence of a workplace accident.
2. Whether the award could be sustained where the occurrence of the accident was supported by such declarations along with corroborating circumstances and other non-hearsay proof (a “residuum” of legal evidence).

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division order upholding the Board’s award, with costs.
- The court held that the Board could give probative weight to Altschuller’s declarations even though they were hearsay, given his inability to testify and the remedial, administrative character of compensation proceedings.
- The court held the award was not based solely on hearsay: there was corroboration and a sufficient residuum of legal evidence in the surrounding facts and testimony to support findings that an accident occurred in the course of employment and caused the disability.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation hearings are not governed by strict common-law evidence rules; the Board may receive hearsay and consider its probative force under Workmen’s Compensation Law § 118.
- A compensation award may not rest on hearsay alone; there must be a residuum of legal (non-hearsay) evidence supporting the material findings.
- Declarations of an employee who cannot testify because of incapacity may be considered and may help establish the occurrence of an accident and causal connection, when supported by corroborating circumstances and other proof.
- On judicial review, courts do not retry the facts; if the record contains evidence that reasonably supports the Board’s findings, the award will be sustained even where the proof includes conflicting testimony, including medical opinion.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals sustained a workers’ compensation award for an employee rendered aphasic and totally disabled after an on-the-job lifting episode, holding that the Board could credit the employee’s hearsay declarations when corroborated by other evidence and when the record contained a sufficient residuum of legal proof to support findings of accident and causation.


Altschuller v. Bressler, 46 N.E.2d 886 (1943)