You are here: / / EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW...

EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the employer’s answer to a question in its application for Board review of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s award of benefits was adequate and did not warrant denial of the application. The question concerned when the objection to the ruling was made:

When the employer filed its application for Board review on March 2, 2018, question number 15 on that form, as well as the accompanying instructions in effect at that time, requested that it “[s]pecify the objection or exception interposed to the ruling and when the objection or exception was interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii)” … . In response to question number 15, the employer stated, “Upon information and belief an exception/objection was noted prior to the conclusion of the hearing.” The Board found that the employer’s response was incomplete because the employer “failed to identify the date it interposed an objection on the record in response to [question number] 15” … . Although the Board has consistently found that listing the hearing date at which the objection or exception was made constitutes a complete response to question number 15, the regulation only requires the applicant to state when the objection or exception occurred … . Here, the employer’s response to question number 15 stated when the objection was made, that is, at “the conclusion of the hearing,” at which time the employer stated, “A protective exception, please, your Honor.” In our view, the employer’s response stated when the objection occurred, … and, therefore, the response was complete and complied with the Board’s regulatory formatting requirements … . …

We recognize that, in Subject No. 046-1119, the Board announced that “the [hearing] date when the objection or exception was interposed must be listed” in response to question number 15 on the RB-89 form … . However, Subject No. 046-1119 — as well as the Board’s other November 2018 documents providing clarification of its formatting requirements … postdate the instant March 2018 application for Board review and are, therefore, of no import here … . Matter of Granica v Town of Hamburg, 2020 NY Slip Op 01542, Third Dept 3-5-20

 

You might also like
Competing Expert Affidavits Raised a Question of Fact About Whether the Speed of Defendant’s Vehicle Was a Proximate Cause of the Accident—Plaintiff’s Vehicle Was Struck Broadside by Defendant’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Into Traffic–Supreme Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant Reversed
Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met
DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).
Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process
PARENTS HAD STANDING TO BRING A MANDAMUS ACTION SEEKING A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN, HOWEVER MANDAMUS LIES ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT ACTIONS WHICH ARE MANDATORY, NOT THE DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PETITION HERE (THIRD DEPT).
RE-READING THE ORIGINAL JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT ADDRESS THE CONFUSION EXPRESSED IN THE NOTE FROM THE JURY; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE INITIAL DETERMINATION WHETHER A WITNESS WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​
Presentation of Hearsay to Grand Jury Did Not Taint the Proceedings—Criteria 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

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE REMOTELY... THE USE OF THE TERM “VICTIM” TO REFER TO THE COMPLAINING WITNESS...