You are here: / / CLAIMANT PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE A 35% LOSS OF WAGE EARNING CAPACITY DESPITE...

CLAIMANT PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE A 35% LOSS OF WAGE EARNING CAPACITY DESPITE HIS HAVING RETURNED TO WORK FULL-TIME.

The Third Department determined claimant was properly determined to have a 35% loss of wage earning capacity even though he had returned to work full-time. Because claimant had returned to work, he was not awarded any compensation. However, should his ability to work change, he would be entitled to up to 275 weeks of compensation. The court explained the different meanings of “wage earning capacity” and “loss of wage earning capacity:”

The employer argues that, because claimant returned to work full time at his preaccident wages, claimant’s wage-earning capacity at the time of classification was 100%; therefore, the employer’s argument continues, the Board’s finding that claimant sustained a 35% loss of wage-earning capacity was in error and unlawful. The employer’s argument on this point ignores the fact that the terms “wage-earning capacity” (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [5-a]) and “loss of wage-earning capacity” (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [w]) “are to be used for separate and distinct purposes” … . As this Court recently reiterated, “wage-earning capacity is used to determine a claimant’s weekly rate of compensation,” whereas “loss of wage-earning capacity . . . is used at the time of classification to set the maximum number of weeks over which a claimant with a permanent partial disability is entitled to receive benefits” … . “Unlike wage-earning capacity, which can fluctuate based on a claimant’s employment status, loss of wage-earning capacity [is] intended to remain fixed” … . Contrary to the employer’s assertion, “[t]he durational limits imposed by Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) do not distinguish between claimants who are employed at the time of classification and those who are not” … . Matter of De Ruggiero v City of N.Y. Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 03999, 3rd Dept 5-18-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CLAIMANT PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE A 35% LOSS OF WAGE EARNING CAPACITY DESPITE HIS HAVING RETURNED TO WORK FULL-TIME)

You might also like
Forcing Defendant to Go to Trial When His Expert on the Intoxication Defense Was Not Available Rendered Defendant’s Guilty Plea Involuntary and Coerced
DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT).
INCLUSION OF CLAIMANT’S PHOTOGRAPH ON A WALL OF SHAME DEPICTING PERSONS ARRESTED DURING OPERATION SAFE INTERNET, AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF THE INTERNET FOR THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN, CONSTITUTED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION SUPPORTING A $300,000 DAMAGES AWARD (THIRD DEPT).
IN A VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE, THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT FROM MARIJUANA IS THE SAME AS THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT FROM ALCOHOL (THIRD DEPT).
BRADY MATERIAL TURNED OVER TO DEFENDANT AFTER HE PLED GUILTY MAY HAVE AFFECTED HIS DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT PLEA OFFER TO ACCEPT AND WHETHER TO MOVE TO DISMISS CERTAIN CHARGES; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).
Proper Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Explained
PAROLE BOARD PROPERLY CONSIDERED PETITIONER’S YOUTH AT THE TIME HE COMMITTED SERIOUS CRIMES, PAROLE PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
STANDARD PRACTICE OF USING THE SALE PROCEEDS TO PAY OFF THE EXISTING MORTGAGES ON THE SELLER’S PROPERTY AFTER THE CLOSING UPHELD BY THE MAJORITY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE STANDARD PRACTICE VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE STANDARD PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES THE PROPERTY TO BE UNENCUMBERED AT THE CLOSING (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

CLAIMANT, WHO WAS UNABLE TO WORK BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE, WAS ENTITLED TO... PLAINTIFF DEEMED TO HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT BEFORE...