You are here: / / WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF BOTH TEMPORARY T...

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF BOTH TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS AND TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the workers’ compensation carrier was entitled to reimbursement of both the temporary total disability and temporary partial disability payments in the years preceding the schedule loss of use (SLU) award by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. Claimant argued that, based on the wording of the statute, the carrier was entitled to only the temporary partial disability payments:

… [W]hile it is true that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4-a) “expressly provides for . . . an offset in the case of an award for [a] temporary total disability [that] is not protracted” and that no corresponding language appears in Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5), which addresses temporary partial disability awards… , this Court consistently has held that “the schedule award is not allocable to any particular period of disability” … . …

As we discern no basis upon which to treat the carrier’s temporary total disability payments and temporary partial disability payments to claimant in a disparate fashion… , and in order to avoid what otherwise would be a significant windfall to claimant, we find that the Board’s decision — holding that “the carrier may take [a] credit for all prior [disability] payments” — to be supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Robinson v Workmen’s Circle Home, 2018 NY Slip Op 05652, Third Dept 8-2-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF BOTH TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS AND TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SERVE A 10-MONTHS-LATE ANSWER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; IN ADDITION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIIRD DEPT).
A CONFERENCE IN CHAMBERS ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF THE SEX ABUSE ALLEGATIONS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TRIAL WAS DEEMED TO BE A MATERIAL STAGE OF THE TRIAL AT WHICH DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THE COURT RULED EVIDENCE OF THE FIRING COULD BE PRESENTED; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER LIVED IN NEW JERSEY AND COMMUTED TO NEW YORK CITY FOR WORK; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS OWNED A VACATION HOME IN NORTHFIELD, NEW YORK, AND SPENT THREE WEEKS A YEAR THERE, THE NORTHFIELD HOME DID NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A PERMANENT PLACE OF ABODE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX LAW; THEREFORE THE TAX TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE CONCLUDED PETITIONERS OWED NEW YORK STATE INCOME TAX (THIRD DEPT). ​
Presentation of Hearsay to Grand Jury Did Not Taint the Proceedings—Criteria Explained
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PRIOR OWNER OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S INSTALLATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY GIVING RISE TO A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
CERTAIN FOIL REQUESTS RE: THE TRAINING AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (THRID DEPT).
Under Liberal Construction of Lien Law Defendant Did Not Waive Its Mechanic’s Lien by Failing to Assert Lien-Based Counterclaims and Cross Claims In Its Initial Answer

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

STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT... CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION...