You are here: / / Employer Must Show Workers’ Compensation Board Approved a Settlement...

Employer Must Show Workers’ Compensation Board Approved a Settlement with the Plaintiff In Order to Be Entitled to Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff ‘s Subsequent Damages Suit (Plaintiff-Employee Is Not Entitled to Both Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Damages But an Unapproved Settlement Is Not Binding)

The Second Department determined defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-employee’s personal injury complaint was properly denied.  Although the defendant and the employer had reached a settlement, the Workers’ Compensation Board never approved the settlement.  Without demonstrating the board approved the settlement, the employer was not entitled to summary judgment. An unapproved settlement is not binding on the parties:

Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) provide that an employee who elects to receive compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer in an action at law for the injuries sustained” … . A defendant moving for summary judgment based on the exclusivity defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law must demonstrate, prima facie, the applicability of the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 provides, in relevant part, that once a claim has been filed, the claimant, the employer and its carrier may enter into “an agreement settling upon and determining the compensation and other benefits due to the claimant” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 32[a]). However, that statute also provides that the “agreement shall not bind the parties to it, unless it is approved by the board” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 32[a]). While a plaintiff cannot receive both the benefits of Workers’ Compensation and damages in an action at law …, here, the defendant failed to establish that a settlement agreement reached by the parties was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Smith-Lerner v Art Students League of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 04476, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S MOTION TO AMEND FAMILY COURT’S FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS AFTER THE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES NOTIFIED THE CHILD THAT THE FINDINGS DID NOT ADDRESS THE CHILD’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE MS-13 GANG SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioners, Who Did Not Represent a Majority of the Elected Board of Directors, Did Not Have Standing the Seek Dissolution of the Corporation Under Business Corporation Law 1102/Criteria for Common-Law Dissolution Not Met
SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE PENALTY DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK FROM BEHIND, NO EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Finding of Neglect of One Child by Consent Is Admissible In a Derivative Neglect Proceeding Re: Another Child—Criteria for Derivative Neglect Explained
Insufficient Proof Plaintiff Was Defendant’s Special Employee
LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Under NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Owners Have Duty to Maintain Sidewalk... Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion...