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
Factory-Work Packaging Yogurt Was Not “Suitable Employment” for a Skilled Carpenter
THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PEOPLE’S ACCIDENT-RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT (WHO WAS NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL) WOULD HAVE HAD AN IMPACT ON THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE DEFENSE ACCIDENT-RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT; WITHHOLDING THE EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENSE WAS A BRADY VIOLATION REQUIRING REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED; FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE POSSESSION CONSTITUTED A FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (THIRD DEPT).
Participation in One’s Own Business, Even If the Business Generates No Income, Can Render One Ineligible for Unemployment Benefits
FATHER’S VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MOTHER’S CONSENT; ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE LINCOLN HEARING IN THE APPELLATE BRIEF; THE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS ARE SEALED AND CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT DID NOT TRY TO HIDE THE DOG-WALKING BUSINESS AND WAS ONLY TANGENTIALLY INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION SHE HAD MADE A MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT IN HER CLAIM FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS STEMMING FROM HER FORMER EMPLOYMENT AS A BARTENDER (THIRD DEPT).
Multiplicitous Indictment Counts Dismissed/Warrantless Search of Impounded Vehicle Upheld

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...