You are here: / / THE OPINION EVIDENCE THAT CLAIMANT’S PRE-EXISTING HEART CONDITION...
,

THE OPINION EVIDENCE THAT CLAIMANT’S PRE-EXISTING HEART CONDITION WAS A HINDRANCE TO HER EMPLOYABILITY WAS INSUFFICIENT, THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER, THEREFORE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the evidence did not support the finding that the claimant’s pre-existing conditions posed a hindrance to her employability. Therefore the carrier was not entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund:

Claimant, a licensed practical nurse, established a claim for a work-related injury to her right knee stemming from a September 3, 2004 accident that occurred while she was dispensing medication to patients. * * *

We find that the carrier failed to prove that claimant’s preexisting conditions hindered or were likely to hinder her employability. Although Moriarty, an orthopedist, did offer an opinion based upon a records review that claimant’s heart conditions could pose a hindrance to employability, the opinion was based upon generalities and speculation, and did not rationally support the conclusion that claimant’s present disability was “‘materially and substantially greater than what would have arisen from the [2004] work-related injury by itself'” … . Moriarty did not examine or interview claimant, and the record does not reflect that claimant was subject to any restrictions or that any of her preexisting conditions hindered her job performance or ability to work… . In addition, as noted in Moriarty’s addendum, claimant’s aortic insufficiency from a heart valve condition was controlled by medication, and “preexisting conditions that are controlled by medication have been found, without more, not to constitute a hindrance to employability” … . In view of the lack of evidence that claimant’s preexisting conditions hindered or were likely to hinder her employability, we find that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, it must be reversed … . Matter of Ricci v Maria Regina Residence, 2018 NY Slip Op 08980, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

You might also like
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff Sufficiently Demonstrated the Possibility of Long-Arm Jurisdiction to Warrant Discovery
Whether a Confidential Relationship Existed With Decedent Is a Question of Fact for the Jury; Application of Dead Man’s Statute Explained
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A NONCONFORMING USE HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED OR ABANDONED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED.
Late Notice of Settlement of Negligence Action to Workers’ Compensation Carrier Did Not Preclude Court-Approval of Settlement Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law
Fact that Notary Public Did Not Administer an Oath to the Signatories on the Designating Petition Did Not Invalidate the Petition
Revocation of Pistol Permit Upheld Despite Petitioner’s Acquittal on Related Criminal Charges—No Formal Revocation Hearing Is Required
Photo Array Unduly Suggestive—Proof Burdens Explained

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

DEFENDANTS NEVER INTERPOSED AN ANSWER SO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY... CLAIMANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND AN UNRELATED ROBBERY WHICH WERE CHARGED...