dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum by Casey, J. Casey, J. (dissenting). Since the record contains the reports of two medical experts concluding that decedent’s work-related heart condition contributed to his death, the contrary evidence in the record created a classic case of conflicting expert medical opinions. Our scope of review of Workers’ Compensation Board decisions does not include the power to substitute our view of the factual merits of a controversy for that of the Board (Matter of Axel v Duffy-Mott Co., 47 NY2d 1, 6). The conflicting expert medical evidence merely raised a factual issue for the Board to resolve (Matter of Rodriguez v Continental Steel Corp., 106 AD2d 752, 754; Matter of Adler v Guild Elecs., 97 AD2d 606). In contrast with Matter of Riehl v Town of Amherst (308 NY 212), the testimony of Dr. Martin Fox herein reaffirms the opinion in his report and establishes that his opinion was not *711based on pure speculation. Accordingly, we would affirm the Board’s decision.