You are here: / / VOCATIONAL FACTORS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SETTING COMPENSTATION FOR PERMANENTLY...

VOCATIONAL FACTORS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SETTING COMPENSTATION FOR PERMANENTLY DISABLED LABORER.

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly took into account the claimant’s “vocational factors,” i.e., limited education, language barrier, work history, when setting the appropriate compensation. Claimant suffered a permanent partial disability and had been employed as a landscaper:

Here, … claimant suffered a permanent partial disability, there is no expectation that he will ever return to his former or similar employment as a laborer, and the Board necessarily considered vocational factors when it established his loss of wage-earning capacity. Because the evidence established that claimant did not earn actual wages, the statute authorized the Board to “[fix] in the interest of justice . . . such wage[-]earning capacity as shall be reasonable . . . having due regard to the nature of his injury and his physical impairment” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [5-a]). … [W]e find that the [statute’s] broad discretionary language authorized the Board to consider vocational factors that reflected claimant’s true ability to secure employment, particularly in the absence of evidence to negate claimant’s testimony that his injury contributed to his loss of wage-earning capacity … . Consequently, under the circumstances presented, we perceive no error in the Board’s determination to fix claimant’s wage-earning capacity based on the undisputed evidence of his physical disability and loss of wage-earning capacity resulting from his functional limitations and vocational impediments … . Matter of Rosales v Eugene J. Felice Landscaping, 2016 NY Slip Op 07239, 2nd Dept 11-3-16

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (VOCATIONAL FACTORS PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SETTING COMPENSTATION FOR PERMANENTLY DISABLED LABORER)

You might also like
Sidewalk Dropoff Was a Trivial Defect
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​
BUDGETARY CONCERNS RELATED TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC JUSTIFED THE DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION TO CONTINUE SERVING ON THE BENCH TO 46 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO REACHED THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE OF 70 IN 2020 (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT DID NOT SUCCEED IN DEMONSTRATING HER CONDITION HAD WORSENED SUCH THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO INCREASED BENEFITS, HER COUNSEL’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESCINDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT WAS NOT ‘DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT (THIRD DEPT).
REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff’s Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student–the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff’s Son) by the Attacker—The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant
THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN NECESSARY AND THE PROCEDURES FOR AN INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE WERE NOT FOLLOWED; THE SEIZED HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (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

AMUSEMENT TAX AND CABARET TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED... NONWORKING CLAIMANT SUBJECT TO THE 75% CAP ON WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY IS NOT...