You are here: / / CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION...

CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW; HER APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined claimant’s application for Board review should not have been rejected based upon claimant’s answer to question 15 which asks for the the specific ruling objected to:

Claimant filed her application for Board review … and question number 15 on the form RB-89 application and the accompanying instructions directed her to “[s]pecify the objection or exception interposed to the [WCLJ’s] ruling and when it was interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii)” … . Claimant responded by stating that “an exception was noted at the hearing on [January 11, 2018],” that the WCLJ had noted that exception in his decision and that the “objection [was] continued by way of” the application for Board review. The Board found that this response was deficient because it failed to identify the exception. This finding overlooked the information already provided in the application for Board review, however, as claimant made clear in her responses to question numbers 11 and 12 that the challenged ruling was the finding of “no compensable disability” from May 10, 2017 to November 27, 2017 and that the issue was whether the WCLJ had erred in crediting certain medical testimony to make that ruling. Claimant identified the ruling at issue in those responses and, by citing the “exception” continued in her “application for review,” her response to question number 15 unambiguously referred to the ruling named in her prior responses so as to provide the information required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii) and demanded by the form instructions … . Matter of Narine v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 02142, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

You might also like
DESPITE THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A BEST INTERESTS HEARING.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE NEED FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANNULLED.
THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS FOR TWO SEPARATE MURDERS WHICH WERE TRIED TOGETHER; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE TWO PROSECUTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE PROBABILITY THE JURY WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF EACH MURDER SEPARATELY (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL AFTER STEPPING ON A CHERRY TOMATO IN DEFENDANT’S STORE; CONSULT THIS DECISION FOR A DISCUSSION OF HOW A DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, DESPITE THIS BEING DEFENDANT’S FIRST CONTACT WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, HIS ACQUITTAL OF THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGES, AND AFFIDAVITS FROM SEVERAL JURORS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
ALTHOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED FOUR DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PURSUANT TO A DEFENSE SUBPOENA INCLUDED BRADY MATERIAL, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE DEFENSE HAD A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE INFORMATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES; THE DISSENTER DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

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 WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT PROVIDE... FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW...