You are here: / / THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR...
,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DISQUALIFYING CLAIMANT FROM FUTURE WAGE REPLACEMENT BENEFITS, MATTER REMITTED SO THAT ASPECT OF THE PENALTY CAN BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board must provide some explanation of the discretionary sanction against claimant disqualifying him from future benefits. The Board had found that claimant misrepresented his physical condition, based upon video surveillance evidence. The Third Department held there was sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding on the misrepresentation claim before it, but an explanation for prohibiting future claims was required before that aspect of the penalty could be reviewed on appeal:

Claimant also challenges the Board’s imposition of the discretionary sanction disqualifying him from receiving future wage replacement benefits. By not providing any reason for its imposition of this discretionary penalty, the Board failed to satisfy its obligation to “provide some basis for appellate review” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted so that the Board can fulfill its obligation and “provide some explanation for its determination in this regard” … . Matter of Papadakis v Fresh Meadow Power NE LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08728, Third Dept 12-29-18

 

You might also like
CO-WORKERS’ EGREGIOUS AND LEWD BEHAVIOR, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYER’S INADEQUATE RESPONSE, CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.
Absolute Privilege Attaches to Statement Made by a Nonparticipant in the Litigation Which Is Republished by an Attorney In the Course of the Litigation
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.
Workers’ Compensation Carrier Not Liable After Liability Has Shifted to Special Fund—Board Overruled Precedent Holding Otherwise When the Carrier is Responsible for Delay Until the Special Fund Is Available to Assume Liability
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE BROUGHT IN WRONG COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED (THIRD DEPT).
Massage Therapist Was Employee
ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF A CONTRACT WHICH REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE UNENFORCEABLE.

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

LEASE INCLUDED AN EXPRESS PROVISION ALLOWING TENANT TO WITHHOLD RENT IF THE... COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEES RELATED BACK TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS...