You are here: / / Lump Sum Payments for Pending Workers’ Compensation Claims Made by...
,

Lump Sum Payments for Pending Workers’ Compensation Claims Made by Municipalities Choosing to Withdraw from a Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund Must Be Discounted to Present Value

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a partial dissent, determined that the lump sum to be paid by municipalities for pending workers' compensation claims when withdrawing from a workers' compensation self-insurance fund should be discounted to present value.  The court noted that the lump sum was to be used to pay out workers' compensation benefits for years to come:

Generally, discounting future damages to their value at some point in the past is appropriate because it takes into account the time value of money. “[W]hen an amount intended to compensate for a future loss is discounted back to a particular time, the discounted amount represents the sum which, if invested at that time at reasonable rates of return, would theoretically produce the intended amount at the future time when the loss is incurred” .. . We are perhaps most familiar with discounting in wrongful death, personal injury, and medical malpractice actions, where discounting is required by statute (see CPLR 5031; 5041). In those contexts, it is often the future earning power of the injured party, or a similar measure of future damages, that must be reduced to its value on the date of injury. However, there is no material difference between the value of a decedent's future income in a wrongful death case and the value of workers' compensation benefits to be paid out over the life of a disability claim. In both cases, some or all of the losses will be incurred in the future. Here, the injury in question is a breach of contract, and the future losses manifest themselves in the form of contract damages. Village of Ilion v County of Herkimer, 2014 NY Slip Op 02873, CtApp 5-1-14

 

You might also like
OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S IN UTERO INJURIES WERE ARRIVED AT USING A GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED IN UTERO INJURY FROM GASOLINE FUMES IN CAR MANUFACTURED BY DEFENDANT BMW.
Destruction of Video that May Have Been Relevant to the Defense Required Adverse Inference Charge
Disclaimer Notice Sent to Insureds’ Insurer, But Not to Insureds, Invalid
A JUDGMENT DEBTOR CANNOT BRING AN ACTION IN TORT AGAINST THE CREDITOR OR THE MARSHAL ALLEGING DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY TO BE APPLIED TO THE DEBT; THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S REMEDIES ARE CONFINED TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN CPLR 5239 AND 5240 (CT APP).
PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS ARE TREATED LIKE THE STATE FOR DETERMINING THEIR CAPACITY TO CHALLENGE A STATUTE, APPLICABLE DUE PROCESS STANDARD IS WHETHER THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED AS A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO REMEDY AN INJUSTICE, AT ISSUE IS A STATUTE ALLOWING LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY TO BE FILED IN A 9-11 CLEANUP PERSONAL INJURY ACTION (CT APP).
IF A DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA CASTS DOUBT UPON DEFENDANT’S GUILT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA, THE JUDGE MUST “INQUIRE FURTHER;” THIS ISSUE CAN BE APPEALED IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION BY A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OR VACATE THE CONVICTION; HOWEVER THIS EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY IF A DEFENDANT FIRST RAISES A QUESTION ABOUT HIS GUILT AT SENTENCING (CT APP). ​
PROSECUTOR’S CHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPROPER, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

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

Presumption of Validity of Town’s Property Tax Assessment Not Rebutted... Substantive Issue Raised by Petitioner Had Not Been Addressed in a Prior Proceeding...