You are here: / / Workers’ Compensation Board’s Determination of Duration of Disability Giv...
, ,

Workers’ Compensation Board’s Determination of Duration of Disability Given Preclusive Effect in Related Personal Injury Action

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable to determinations of quasi-judicial administrative agencies such as the” Workers’ Compensation Board with respect to “findings of fact that are necessary for an administrative agency to reach.”  Here the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination of the duration of the work-related injury was given preclusive effect in a related personal injury action.  Judge Pigott wrote a strong dissent, arguing in part that the finding was necessarily a mixture of fact and law, not subject to the collateral estoppel principle. Auqui v Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 00950 [20 NY3d 1035], CtApp 2-14-13

 

You might also like
BY CLICKING ON CONTRACT TERMS ON HER SMART PHONE, PLAINTIFF AGREED TO ARBITRATE HER PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM AGAINST UBER; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY AFTER AN UBER DRIVER LEFT HER OFF IN TRAFFIC (CT APP).
SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC STOP CASE AFFIRMED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT QUESTIONED CONTINUED VIABILITY OF THE DEBOUR STREET STOP ANALYSIS, ORAL SUPPRESSION RULING APPEALABLE (CT APP).
Evidence of Defendant’s Silence at the Time of Arrest Should Not Have Been Allowed—New Trial Ordered
JURY INSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE DELIBERATIONS AFTER A NON-UNANIMOUS VERDICT WAS NOT COERCIVE.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (CT APP).
Subpoena Which Could Result In Compelling a New York Reporter to Reveal Her Sources in an Out-of-State Proceeding Should Not Have Been Issued by a New York Court
Code Provision Prohibiting the Placement of Signs on Public Property Is a Constitutional, Content-Neutral Restriction of Speech Which Was Severable from the Rest of the Code Chapter—There Was, Therefore, No Need to Assess the Constitutionality of the Entire Chapter (As the Appellate Division Had)
THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Check Cashing Business Could Not Be Excluded by Zoning Measure Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses in Quasi-Judicial Administrative Hearing