You are here: / / DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL...

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the difference between a schedule loss of use and a nonschedule permanent partial disability:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) contains a schedule of awards for a permanent partial disability resulting from a loss of specific body parts or functions, such as vision and hearing (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [a]-[v]). Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) pertains to “all other cases of permanent partial disability” — i.e., those cases that are not amenable to a schedule award. Whether a schedule loss of use award or a nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification is appropriate constitutes a question of fact for the Board’s resolution, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . A nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification, rather than a schedule loss of use award, “is indicated where there is a continuing condition of pain or continuing need for medical treatment or the medical condition remains unsettled” … . …

… [S]ubstantial evidence, in the form of the medical evidence that claimant suffers from RSD/CRPS, a chronic continuing pain of the face and the opinion that the ptosis of the eyebrow is worsening, supports the Board’s determination that an award of a nonschedulable permanent partial disability pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), rather than a schedule loss of use award, is appropriate … . Matter of Tobin v Finger Lakes DDSO, 2018 NY Slip Op 04413, Third Dept 6-14-18

​WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT SEPARATELY PRONOUNCE A SENTENCE FOR EACH CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT).
THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION CONSTITUTED A FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (THIRD DEPT).
THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE NEW YORK STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE PROVIDES SUFFICIENT STANDARDS AND MECHANISMS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE PROVISIONS; A TENANT WHOSE BUILDING WAS DECLARED UNSAFE AFTER ORDERS TO REMEDY DEFECTS WERE IGNORED BY THE LANDLORD BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO STRENGTHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS AND MECHANISMS; THE PETITION WAS DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
Pulling Into Traffic Without Activating Lights and Siren Did Not Constitute Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT, IN A HEARING-LOSS CASE, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AUDIOGRAM (HEARING TEST) WITH THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPERT EVIDENCE; THE AUDIOGRAM WAS NOT INCLUDED HERE AND THE BOARD DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT (BY CREDITING THE EXPERT EVIDENCE); DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DAMAGE TO A LEG MUSCLE, HERE THE HAMSTRING, SUPPORTED A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
AN UNPAID PENALTY ASSESSED FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAINTAIN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE WAS ENTERED AS A SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT BY THE COUNTY CLERK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DEFENDANT COULD NOT MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (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

RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW APPLIES RETROACTIVELY,... A CLAIMANT MAY NOT RECEIVE BOTH A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD AND A NONSCHEDULE...