## Facts

- Jacob Miller worked for more than 20 years as a piano/cabinet finisher for multiple employers, including National Cabinet Company.
- Miller died of leukemia on August 10, 1950.
- His widow sought workers’ compensation death benefits, initially attributing death to a prior work-related back injury; his physician rejected that causal theory.
- The claim proceeded on a revised theory that leukemia resulted from an occupational disease caused by long-term exposure to benzene (benzol) in varnish removers used in finishing work across Miller’s employments, including at National Cabinet.
- A compensation referee denied benefits, relying on medical evidence indicating leukemia’s cause was unknown and that the record did not establish work-related causation.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed and awarded benefits, relying chiefly on testimony from an expert, Dr. Reznikoff, who stated leukemia incidence was high among those exposed to benzene but lacked supporting statistical data and opined it was “possible” Miller’s leukemia resulted from benzene exposure.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the award, treating causation as a factual issue for the Board.

## Issues

1. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that Miller’s leukemia (and death) was causally related to occupational benzene exposure was supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether expert testimony expressing only a theoretical “possibility” of causation, without empirical support or case-specific linkage, can satisfy the substantial evidence standard for an administrative award.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed and annulled the award of death benefits.
- The court held the Board’s causation finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court concluded the expert proof relied on speculation because it lacked data and did not establish that benzene exposure probably caused Miller’s leukemia in this case.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative fact-finding is binding on review only when supported by substantial evidence—evidence a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support the conclusion.
- In occupational disease cases, causation must rest on proof of probability in the particular case; testimony that an exposure could “possibly” cause a disease, without supporting data or a concrete link to the claimant’s circumstances, is insufficient.
- Deference to the Workers’ Compensation Board does not permit affirmance where the Board’s inference of causation is untethered from substantial evidentiary support and instead rests on conjecture.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the compensation award because the record’s medical proof did not rise above an unsupported possibility that benzene exposure caused the decedent’s leukemia, and therefore failed the substantial evidence standard required to sustain the Board’s finding of occupational disease.


Miller v. Nat'l Cabinet Co., 8 N.Y.2d 277, 204 N.Y.S.2d 129, 168 N.E.2d 811 (1960)