You are here: / / RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW APPLIES RETROACTIVELY,...

RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, CLAIMANT WITH A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY WHO HAS INVOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN FROM THE LABOR MARKET NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE A CONTINUED ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a recent amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law applied retroactively and was properly applied to claimant’s case. The amendment provides that a worker who has involuntarily withdrawn from the labor market with a permanent partial disability need not demonstrate a continued attachment to the labor market:

… [T]he Board panel … issued an amended decision finding that claimant was not required to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market based upon a recent amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) … . That amendment states, in relevant part, that in cases such as claimant’s, “compensation . . . shall be payable during the continuance of such permanent partial disability, without the necessity for the claimant who is entitled to benefits at the time of classification to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market” … ….

… [W]e find that the amendment is applicable here and relieves claimant from the need to demonstrate a continued attachment to the labor market. Although it is generally preferable to construe a statute in a prospective manner, a retroactive application is warranted if the statutory language expressly or by necessary implication so provides … . Matter of O’Donnell v Erie County, 2018 NY Slip Op 04410, Third Dept 6-14-18

​WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, CLAIMANT WITH A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY WHO HAS INVOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN FROM THE LABOR MARKET NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE A CONTINUED ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
PETITIONER’S PISTOL PERMIT WAS NOT REVOKED FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PERMIT HAD BEEN REVOKED IN THE PAST, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT “GOOD CAUSE” FOR DENIAL OF THE INSTANT PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE PERMIT; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER-POLICE-OFFICER’S SLIP AND FALL ON BLACK ICE WAS A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT UNDER THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW BECAUSE THE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS WERE SUCH THAT THE PRESENCE OF BLACK ICE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED.
UNDER THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, LAID OFF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION TO A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION WERE NOT ENTITLED TO REMAIN IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WHEN REHIRED BY THE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION (THIRD DEPT).
COMMISSIONER AND CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES FOR A REVIEW OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION 3RD DEPT.
DEFENDANT ARGUED THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH REPRESENTED THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE UNFAIRLY APPORTIONED THE PAYMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THEM SUCH THAT THE NON-NEGLIGENT, VICARIOUSLY LIABLE PARTY PAID $2 MILLION, AND THE NEGLIGENT PARTY PAID $200,000; AFTER INDEMNIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AMOUNT OF $2 MILLION DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO BE INDEMNIFIED BY THE NEGLIGENT PARTY; THE ATTEMPT WAS REJECTED UNDER BOTH CONTRACTUAL AND COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION THEORIES (THIRD DEPT).
CONTRARY TO THE STANDARD USED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, AN SLU NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ANY PRIOR SLU TO THE SAME PART OF THE BODY; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE PROPER STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).
Request for Employees’ Names and Addresses Not Allowed Under Balancing Test (Privacy versus Public Interest)

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

EDUCATION LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT RELEASE OF THE IDENTITIES... DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL...