You are here: / / THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULED THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE...
, ,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULED THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE “POST-CONCUSSION SYNDROME” OR A “CONCUSSION CONDITION;” PLAINTIFF WAS THEREFORE ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THOSE INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the ruling by the Workers’ Compensation Board that plaintiff did not have “post-concussion syndrome” or a “concussion condition” collaterally estopped plaintiff from claiming those injuries in this Labor Law action:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying its motion insofar as it effectively sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for damages related to PCS or a concussion condition as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, but we conclude that plaintiff’s claims for damages related to headaches and the alleged concussion itself are not so barred. The quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies, such as the Workers’ Compensation Board (Board), “are entitled to collateral estoppel effect where the issue a party seeks to preclude in a subsequent civil action is identical to a material issue that was necessarily decided by the administrative tribunal and where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before that tribunal” … and a determination whether a plaintiff actually sustained a physical injury causally related to an accident … , the Board in this case specifically found that plaintiff did not have “post-concussion syndrome” or a “concussion condition” that were causally related to the second work accident. Szymkowiak v New York Power Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01702, Fourth Dept 3-11-22

Practice Point: Here the Workers’ Compensation Board’s ruling plaintiff did not have “post-concussion syndrome” or a “concussion condition” precluded claims for those injuries in the plaintiff’s Labor Law action pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

 

You might also like
THE APPEAL WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET; THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS HELD BUT SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE A RULING; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED AGAIN FOR THE RULING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE PLEA COLLOQUY IN WHICH DEFENDANT STATED HE CARED FOR THE THREE-YEAR-OLD VICTIM NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS AFFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THERE WAS NO ADMISSIBLE PROOF FATHER FAILED TO PLAN FOR THE CHILDREN’S FUTURE FOR ONE FULL YEAR (FOURTH DEPT). ​
A CORPORATION OPERATING A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY MAY BRING A PLENARY ACTION BASED UPON THE DENIAL OF MEDICAID BENEFITS FOR ONE OF ITS RESIDENTS; NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT INSURANCE AGENT WAS NOT UNDER A DUTY TO NOTIFY THE INSURER OF THE INSURED’S DEATH OR TO MAKE SURE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS WERE NAMED ON THE POLICY AFTER THE INSURED’S DEATH; THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER CONTINUED TO PAY THE HOUSE INSURANCE PREMIUMS AFTER HER MOTHER’S DEATH, WHEN THE HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE THE INSURER DISCLAIMED COVERAGE BECAUSE ONLY THE DECEDENT WAS NAMED ON THE POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT STATE PAROLE OFFICER WAS DRIVING A STATE-OWNED VEHICLE AND ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY BROUGHT SUIT IN SUPREME COURT AS OPPOSED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND, THE INSURED, WAS DRIVING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO SHOW HER HUSBAND HAD REQUESTED COVERAGE ON HER BEHALF AND, BECAUSE THE INSURER (ALLEGEDLY) NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE, THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO COVER HER LOSS, DESPITE HER STATUS AS A NONCLIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION RELIED ON EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT AN ACTION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT BY SUMMONS IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3213 (FOURTH 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

PURSUANT TO A US SUPREME COURT DECISION WHICH CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S... THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ANONYMOUS TIP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO...