You are here: / / CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN UNLIMITED MEDICAL...
,

CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN UNLIMITED MEDICAL RELEASE AS OPPOSED TO A LIMITED RELEASE CONCERNING ONLY THOSE AREAS OF HIS BODY AT ISSUE IN THE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was not required to provide an unlimited medical release. Claimant should have been required to provide a release limited to those areas of his body which were at issue in the claim for benefits:

The Board’s regulations provide that a limited release is a “limited authorization to obtain relevant medical records regarding the prior medical history of the body part or illness at issue” (12 NYCRR 300.37 [b] [1] [iii]). It is applicable “if the claimant files a completed employee claim form and indicates on the form that he or she had a prior injury to the same body part or similar illness to the one(s) listed on the form” (12 NYCRR 300.37 [b] [1] [iii]). There is no question that, prior to filing his claim, claimant received medical treatment from various physicians for the same sites of injury dating back to at least 2011. It is evident from the record and the briefs that both parties agree that the employer is entitled to claimant’s past medical records for the claimed sites. That said, claimant maintains that the Board erred in requiring him to sign an open-ended HIPAA release, without limiting that release to treatment records pertaining to the claimed sites. Although the employer would certainly be entitled to the medical records of all providers, once identified, who treated the claimed sites, the fact remains that claimant was only obligated to provide a limited release for those providers. As such, we agree with claimant that the Board erred in directing him to provide an unlimited medical release. Matter of Trusewicz v Delta Envtl., 2019 NY Slip Op 09336, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

You might also like
IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS FORMED (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION.
THE ADMISSION ALLOCUTION IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE JUDGE QUESTION THE JUVENILE AND A PARENT, FELL SHORT OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IN THE FAMILY COURT ACT; PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Decedent Fell to His Death in a Gorge on Property Owned by Cornell University—Questions of Fact Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent Was “Hiking” within the Meaning of the General Obligations Law (which Would Relieve the University of Liability) and Whether the Dangerous Condition Was Open and Obvious
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HOTEL DEFENDANTS WERE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SNOWMOBILE TOUR GUIDE UNDER AN APPARENT AGENCY THEORY.
SUIT ALLEGING TOWN AND COUNTY NEGLIGENTLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR A FESTIVAL WITHOUT MAKING SURE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WERE ADEQUATE DISMISSED ON GOVERNMENTAL-IMMUNITY GROUNDS.
Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant Striking 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

CHANGE IN TAX LAW RESULTING IN THE REMOVAL OF PETITIONER LAW FIRM’S CERTIFICATION... THE JURY WAS WRONGLY INSTRUCTED ON THE INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE...