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
BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY DEREGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (CT APP).
City Employee Blocking Roadway to Facilitate Repairs Was Engaged in a Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function–Ordinary Rules of Negligence Applied
DEFENDANT PROPERLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A SWITCHBLADE, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).
Admission of Child Abuse Made by Defendant to Psychiatrist Protected by Physician-Patient Privilege—Even Though the Admission Can Be Disclosed in Child Protective Proceedings, the Privilege Applies in a Criminal Trial
Statute Which Elevates Criminal Possession of a Weapon to a C Felony, Even When Possession is in the Home, Does Not Violate the Second Amendment
Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error
A Defendant Who Has Been Found Mentally Unfit to Proceed To Trial Cannot Be Subjected to a Parole Revocation Proceeding
AFTER BREAKING UP A FIGHT BETWEEN TWO MEN ON THE STREET AND HANDCUFFING THEM, THE POLICE QUESTIONED DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION HE HAD PUNCHED THE VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (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 © 2026 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