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
AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONCLUSION THAT MOTHER WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE FATHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD, CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Tolled Until Fiduciary’s Roles Terminated
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON THE “LOCALITY RULE” TO DISMISS THE OPINION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BECAUSE THE EXPERT PRACTICED MEDICINE IN ANOTHER STATE: WHEN AN EXPERT TESTIFIES ABOUT STANDARDS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THE LOCALITY RULE SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).
Tortious Interference with Contract.
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE FATAL SHOOTING OF THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL THE VICTIM, AS OPPOSED TO AN INTENT TO ROB OR ASSAULT (THIRD DEPT).
THE 2012 SENTENCE IMPOSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME; THEREFORE A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE ON THAT GROUND IS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
Customer Service Representative Working from Home Properly Determined to Be an Employee

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...