You are here: / / COMPENSATION FOR CARE BY CLAIMANT’S FAMILY MEMBER MUST BE PAID TO...

COMPENSATION FOR CARE BY CLAIMANT’S FAMILY MEMBER MUST BE PAID TO THE CLAIMANT, NOT THE FAMILY MEMBER 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined compensation paid directly to claimant’s wife for her care of claimant should have been paid to claimant:

This Court has previously held “that payment of the reimbursement of the costs for [a spouse’s] services must be made to [the] claimant, not to the spouse” … . The Board’s interpretation and reliance on Matter of Perrin v Builders Resource, Inc. (116 AD3d 1208 [2014]) to reach a different conclusion is misplaced. The issue in Matter of Perrin was whether the claimant was aggrieved by the pay rate set for the home health aide services provided by the claimant’s sister. In concluding that the appeal therein must be dismissed because the claimant was not aggrieved, this Court did not, as found by the Board, tacitly overrule any prior decisions of this Court with regard to whom reimbursement of payments is to be made with regard to home health care services provided by a spouse or family member. As we find no basis to depart from this Court’s prior case law that, under such circumstances, “[t]he amount of the award . . . must be paid only to the claimant,” the Board’s decision must be reversed … . Matter of Buckner v Buckner & Kourofsky, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 05650, 3rd Dept, 7-13-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (COMPENSATION FOR CARE BY CLAIMANT’S FAMILY MEMBER MUST BE PAID TO THE CLAIMANT, NOT THE FAMILY MEMBER 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK AND EXAGGERATION PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISCHARGE OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Purchase Contract Properly Converted to a “Time Is of the Essence” Contract
THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.
Nature of a Repugnant Verdict Explained—Here the Verdict Convicting Defendant of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Acquitting Defendant of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance Was Not Repugnant—The Proof at Trial Plays No Part in the Repugnancy Analysis
BRAND AMBASSADOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL; COUNSEL DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND DID NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE HIS TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY BRINGING A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF ON THE SAME GROUNDS, AS WELL AS DAMAGES (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

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT... A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A...