You are here: / / EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO CLAIMANT SINCE...

EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO CLAIMANT SINCE THE ACCIDENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT WAS NOT PAID COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE ENTIRE TIME SINCE THE ACCIDENT.

The Third Department determined that an employer who paid the claimant during the disability period was entitled to reimbursement from the award for the entire time beginning when the accident occurred, despite the fact that claimant was not awarded compensation for that entire period:

Claimant does not dispute that the employer paid him wages for the period of his disability prior to the schedule award and that the employer filed a timely claim for reimbursement with the Board as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) … . Claimant challenges the Board’s reimbursement directive upon the ground that the reimbursement here covers a period of time when there were no awards of compensation made, arguing that, as a result, the employer is not entitled to reimbursement of wages paid to claimant during those periods of time and that the amount of reimbursement should be reduced.

However, under settled law, where, as here, a claimant ultimately receives a schedule loss of use award, “an employer has the right to reimbursement for the full amount of wages paid during a claimant’s period of disability from the claimant’s schedule award of worker[s’] compensation benefits” … . * * *  Inasmuch as claimant received a schedule award compensating him for the partial loss of use of his right foot, the Board was correct in finding that the employer was entitled to full reimbursement out of that award for all of its advanced payment of wages to claimant during that time (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [4] [a]). The fact that a temporary disability award was denied during part of that period based upon missing medical evidence in the Board’s record is not relevant to the employer’s entitlement to reimbursement. Matter of Newbill v Town of Hempstead, 2017 NY Slip Op 01049, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO CLAIMANT SINCE THE ACCIDENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT WAS NOT PAID COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE ENTIRE TIME SINCE THE ACCIDENT)

You might also like
Failure to Explain Why Inmate’s Roommates Allegedly Refused to Testify Required Annulment​
Cy Pres Doctrine Properly Applied to Distribute Gifts to the Hospital Which Had Taken Over the Duties of the Named Hospital
Denial of Request that Judge Recuse Himself Must Be Addressed On Direct Appeal, Not Via an Article 78 Proceeding
ALTHOUGH DEEMED HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT SHACKLED DURING A PORTION OF THE TRIAL (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).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCORDED ANY WEIGHT TO AN OFF-THE-RECORD “CONDITION” THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD WITHDRAW THEIR CONSENT TO THE PLEA OFFER IF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WERE GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE CAN BARGAIN FOR SUCH A CONDITION, THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE RECORD ABOUT IT; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTORS FOR A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).
ABSENCE OF APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WAS NOT JURISDICTIONAL AND WAS THEREFORE WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA; ABSENCE OF DA’S SIGNATURE ON THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT DID NOT INVALIDATE IT; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMES ARISING FROM ONE CONTINUOUS INCIDENT WERE NOT ILLEGAL (THIRD DEPT).
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DENIAL OF INMATE’S REQUEST FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY AND INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION... THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY”...