You are here: / / CLAIMANT DID NOT TRY TO HIDE THE DOG-WALKING BUSINESS AND WAS ONLY TANGENTIALLY...

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).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant did not make a material false claim about her involvement in a dog-walking business after the injuries for which she sought Workers’ Compensation benefits. The Board had reversed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s (WCLJ’s) finding to that effect. The Third Department held the evidence did not support the conclusion that claimant was involved in the dog-walking business, run by her brother, and therefore the evidence did not support the conclusion claimant had violated Workers’ Compensation Law 114-a by making a false statement

… [T]he record does not establish that claimant knowingly made a material false statement to influence her claim for compensation in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a … . There is no indication that claimant actively participated in the business after she began receiving temporary total disability payments. Her involvement was tangential at best. Although the business remained intact, it was claimant’s brother who ran the day-to-day operations. Significantly, there is nothing to indicate that claimant attempted to hide the business, as the Board was well aware of its existence at the time that the WCLJ made the reduced earnings award. Accordingly, the Board’s decision finding that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a and imposing penalties is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed. Matter of Nikac v Joal Rest. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 05274, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ON-POINT DECISIONS FROM THE THIRD DEPARTMENT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IS NOT SO BOUND; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
BUSINESS PURSUITS EXCLUSION IN THE HOMEOWNER’S INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE FIRE WOULD HAVE OCCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS, A RESPITE HOME FOR ELDERLY AND SPECIAL NEEDS ADULTS, THREE OF THE RESIDENTS DIED IN THE FIRE STARTED BY CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE GARAGE (THIRD DEPT)
DISMISSAL OF A CLAIM BASED UPON THE PRECLUSION OF AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) REPORT DID NOT CONSTITUTE LITIGATION OF THE CLAIM; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM BASED UPON A NEW IME REPORT (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL, AND DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO RAISE THE WINNING ARGUMENT IN THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT GRANTED DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO REMOVE THE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION FROM HIS SENTENCE; THE OFFENSE OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Corrections Officer Not Entitled to Performance of Duty Disability Benefits Based Upon Injury Stemming from Aiding an Inmate Who Was Having a Seizure
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.
Notice of Increases in Water and Sewer Charges Was Sufficient If Not Ideal/Discrepancies in Water and Sewer Charges Did Not Violate Equal Protection Clause
BECAUSE THE DRUG TESTING WAS FLAWED, THE SUBSTANCE PETITIONER WAS SMOKING WAS NOT IDENTIFIED AS MARIHUANA, AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PROVEN TO BE CONTRABAND; BOTH THE POSSESSION OF DRUGS DETERMINATION AND THE POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND DETERMINATION WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (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

THE MANAGER OF PLAINTIFF BAR PUSHED A MAN DOWN A SET OF STAIRS CAUSING FATAL... CLAIMANT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTITLED TO A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD AND...