You are here: / / TIME LIMITS ON ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY...

TIME LIMITS ON ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY INCLUDED IN WCL 15 (3) (w) APPLY TO THE CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFITS IN WCL 15 (3) (v) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the durational limits for compensation pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) 15 (3) (w) (paragraph w) are incorporated into WCL 15 (3) (v) (paragraph v). Therefore the claimant was entitled to compensation for permanent partial disability (50 % loss of use of his left arm) only for the 275 weeks allowed by paragraph w:

… [N]othing in the language of paragraph v regarding termination of additional compensation upon eligibility for age-based social security benefits contradicts paragraph w’s durational restrictions or precludes their application to paragraph v recipients. By incorporating the entirety of paragraph w’s framework for calculating benefits, paragraph v provides additional compensation lasting a maximum number of weeks as a supplement to the schedule award the worker already received. Paragraph v’s requirement that such payment terminates if the worker becomes eligible for age-based social security payments (regardless of how many weeks have passed) merely places another limit, where applicable, on the additional compensation a claimant can receive. …

… [N]either of the primary benefits that section 15(3) provides are open-ended. Both schedule loss of use awards and non-schedule benefits continue for a maximum number of weeks, depending on the nature or severity of the worker’s disability. Interpreting paragraph v to grant a subset of recipients open-ended benefits limited only by eligibility for age-based social security payments — an award that would potentially span their working lifetimes — would uniquely benefit that small group above all other permanent partial disability award recipients. There is no textual support for such an exceptional interpretation. Rather, under the plain language of paragraph v, additional compensation awards are calculated pursuant to the formula and durational provisions of paragraph w, terminating earlier if or when a claimant becomes eligible for age-based social security benefits. Matter of Mancini v Office of Children & Family Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 08425, CtApp 12-11-18

 

You might also like
Six-Year Breach of Contract Statute of Limitations Applied to Third Party Beneficiaries (Here the Plaintiff Villages and Towns) of Contracts Between the Counties and the Defendant Sewer-Construction Companies
BAIL MAY BE IMPOSED ON A DEFENDANT WHO IS CHARGED WITH COMMITTING NEW OFFENSES WHILE OUT ON BAIL, EVEN IF THE NEW OFFENSES WOULD NOT OTHERWISE QUALIFY FOR THE IMPOSITION OF BAIL (CT APP).
THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP).
REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP).
Defense Counsel’s Absence When Judge Decided to Replace a Sick Juror Not Preserved by Objection/Court Need Not Put on the Record Its Consideration of Alternatives to Courtroom Closure/Factual Allegations Insufficient to Justify a Suppression Hearing
Although the Landlord Can Sue Pursuant to the Accelerated Rent Clause and Is Not Under a Duty to Mitigate, the Out-of-Possession Tenant Should Be Afforded a Hearing On Whether the Accelerated Rent/Liquidated Damages Clause, Under the Facts, Constitutes an Unenforceable Penalty Because It Results In Recovery Grossly Disproportionate to the Landlord’s Actual Damages
THE NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS) DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE “HOST FAMILY HOME” PROGRAM AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE STATUTORY FOSTER CARE PROGRAM (CT APP).
In a Falling Object Case, the Device Which Failed Was Not a Safety Device—Defendant Not Liable

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

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IN VIRGINIA, THERE... WHETHER A JUVENILE’S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE WAS VOLUNTARILY GIVEN PRESENTED...