You are here: / / CLAIMANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO WORK TO WARRANT...

CLAIMANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO WORK TO WARRANT BENEFITS; TOTAL INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY CLAIM SENT BACK, JUDGE AND BOARD FAILED TO DISCUSS THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE DENIAL OF THAT CLAIM.

The Third Department determined claimant, who was found to have a work-related permanent partial disability, did not demonstrate a sufficient attachment to the labor market to warrant benefits. Claimant’s only attempt to go back to work was enrollment in an unfunded training program. The court sent the “total industrial disability” claim back because the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board did not cite any medical evidence in support of the denial of the “total industrial disability” claim:

Although the Board has found that a claimant remains attached to the labor market when it is shown that he or she is actively participating in a job location service or a Board-approved vocational rehabilitation … , we find that the Board’s determination here — that by relying solely on an unfunded training program, claimant was not actively participating in vocational rehabilitation and had voluntarily removed himself from the labor market — is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … .

… [A] “claimant who has a permanent partial disability may nonetheless be classified as totally industrially disabled where the limitations imposed by the work-related disability, coupled with other factors, such as limited educational background and work history, render the claimant incapable of gainful employment” … . While the Board’s determination regarding a total industrial disability will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence ,,, , “Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 requires the Board to include in its decision a statement of facts which formed the basis of its action on the issues raised” … .

Here, the WCLJ found a lack of total industrial disability based solely upon claimant’s failure to seek employment after his accident, with no discussion of the relevant factors relating to a total industrial disability. Matter of Walker v Darcon Constr. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 05888, 3rd Dept 8-25-16

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CLAIMANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO WORK TO WARRANT BENEFITS; TOTAL INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY CLAIM SENT BACK, JUDGE AND BOARD FAILED TO DISCUSS THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE DENIAL OF THAT CLAIM)

You might also like
PAROLE OFFICER’S SEARCH OF PAROLEE’S APARTMENT, BASED UPON A TIP FROM A PERSON KNOWN TO THE PAROLE OFFICER, WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEAN UP AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK ON 9-11 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS UNDER ARTICLE 8-A (THIRD DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THAT THE VALUE OF COMMON AREAS OF A DEVELOPMENT OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY PETITIONER HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION WAS ZERO FOR PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES BECAUSE OF ENCUMBRANCES AND RESTRICTIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE COMMON AREAS HAD BEEN RAISED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT WHETHER HE COULD REQUEST WITNESSES, AND, IF THEY REFUSED TO TESTIFY, WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A REFUSAL FORM OR EXPLANATION, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD’S FINDINGS ON THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER’S DISABILITY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD; REVERSAL WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS THE OWNER OF THE SCOOTER, WHETHER DEFENDANT KNEW DECEDENT WAS NOT COMPETENT TO OPERATE THE SCOOTER, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT GAVE DECEDENT PERMISSION TO TEST DRIVE THE SCOOTER; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Participation in Program Can Be Delayed Until Close to Release Date
FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, INFORMED FAMILY COURT HE WISHED TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; FAMILY COURT DENIED THE REQUEST STATING THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT HELD FATHER, WHO HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BY PHONE (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

MORE THAN A YEAR’S DELAY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR’S SEEKING SUBSTITUTION... EXOTIC DANCERS WERE EMPLOYEES.