You are here: / / Where an Injured Worker Remains Attached to the Work Force After Injury,...

Where an Injured Worker Remains Attached to the Work Force After Injury, the Measure of Benefits Is the Difference Between Actual Earnings Before and After Injury and Cannot Be Based On Evidence of What the Worker Could Be Earning

The Third Department determined that the Workers’ Compensation Board correctly calculated the benefits to which claimant was entitled based upon her actual earnings in her new job in a delicatessen, as opposed to the amount her employer argued she was capable of earning.  Claimant was a nurse’s aid who injured her back while working in a nursing home:

Following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that she had a permanent partial disability and calculated her weekly compensation rate — i.e., two thirds of the difference between what her average weekly wage would be absent injury and her current wage-earning capacity (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [w]), as measured by her degree of disability. Upon claimant’s application for review, the Workers’ Compensation Board increased claimant’s degree of disability and concluded that her wage loss benefits should be based upon her actual reduced earnings from the delicatessen where she now works, as opposed to her degree of disability, and adjusted her weekly awards accordingly. …

“[B]efore awarding wage replacement benefits in a nonschedule permanent partial disability case,” the Board must determine “whether a claimant has maintained a sufficient attachment to the labor market” … — i.e., that the claimant’s “reduced earning capacity is due to the disability, not . . . factors unrelated to the disability” (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), such as “‘age, [or] general economic conditions'” … . Once it is determined that a claimant’s reduced earning capacity remains involuntary and related to his or her permanent partial disability, “[t]he wage earning capacity of an injured employee . . . shall be determined by his [or her] actual earnings” while disabled (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [5-a]…). In that regard, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly explained that, for claimants who have demonstrated that they remained attached to the labor market, “where actual earnings during the period of the disability are established, wage earning capacity must be determined exclusively by the actual earnings of the injured employee without evidence of capacity to earn more or less during such disability period”… . Matter of Gioia v Cattaraugus County Nursing Home, 2014 NY Slip Op 07535, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

You might also like
TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY ISSUED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A MAJOR SOLAR SYSTEM; DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON COMMUNITY OPPOSITION (THIRD DEPT).
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAL HIS 2006 CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT FROM RAISING THAT ISSUE TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2006 CONVICTION IN THE CONTEXT OF A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
Ambiguous Terms Interpreted to Give Meaning to All Terms—Here Water Damage Caused By Plumbing Backup Originating in Building Was Covered—Water Damage Caused By Plumbing Backup Originating Outside the Building Was Not Covered
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESENTENCED ON THE ORIGINAL CHARGE PURSUANT TO CPL 420.10 FOR FAILURE TO PAY RESTITUTION; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR RESENTENCING UNDER THAT STATUTE; RESENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
Department of Corrections Must Comply with State and Federal Courts’ Expressed Intent to Impose Concurrent Sentences
No Standing to Bring an Action Contending Foie Gras Produced by Forced Feeding Is an Adulterated Food
Limitation of Liability Clause in House-Design Contract Valid
CLAIMANT DID NOT TRY TO HIDE THE DOG-WALKING BUSINESS AND WAS ONLY TANGENTIALLY INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION SHE HAD MADE A MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT IN HER CLAIM FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS STEMMING FROM HER FORMER EMPLOYMENT AS A BARTENDER (THIRD 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Employer Took Responsibility for Transporting Claimant Home After Cancellation... Conviction Overturned for the Second Time Because of Misconduct by the Same...