You are here: / / A SUBSEQUENT INJURY TO THE SAME BODY “MEMBER” WHICH WAS THE...

A SUBSEQUENT INJURY TO THE SAME BODY “MEMBER” WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PERCENTAGE LOSS OF THE PRIOR AWARD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion addressing two cases by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissent in each case, determined that, under Workers’ Compensation Law section 15, a subsequent injury to the same body “member” may be fully compensable, notwithstanding a prior injury involving the same body “member:”

The common issue in these appeals is whether, under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15, a claimant’s schedule loss of use (SLU) award must always be reduced by the percentage loss determined for a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same body “member” enumerated in section 15. We hold that separate SLU awards for different injuries to the same statutory member are contemplated by section 15 and, when a claimant proves that the second injury, “considered by itself and not in conjunction with the previous disability” (WCL § 15 [7]), has caused an increased loss of use, the claimant is entitled to an SLU award commensurate with that increased loss of use. .Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02579, CtApp 4-21-22

​Practice Point: A schedule loss of use (SLU) award for injury to a body “member” need not be reduced based on a prior SLU award for injury to the same body “member” if the claimant proves the second injury has caused an increased loss of use.

 

You might also like
Whether Plaintiff “Justifiably Relied” on Alleged Misrepresentations Is Not Generally a Question Which Can Be Resolved in a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action
APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP).
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (H) ARE LIMITED TO THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES (CT APP).
NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR GAP-RELATED ACCIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED ANYTHING LESS THAN SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, REQUEST FOR A JURY CHARGE ON ASSAULT THIRD WAS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP). ​
Bear Stearns Complaint Stated a Cause of Action for Indemnification and Should Not Have Been Dismissed
SHACKLES, QUESTIONS ABOUT A PENDING INDICTMENT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY OF A WITNESS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT WERE NOT MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS AND WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL.
A GENERIC NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION IN A CONTRACT DOES NOT TRANSFORM ALL NEW YORK STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS INTO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT DID NOT MENTION BOND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LIEN LAW AND THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION COULD NOT BE USED TO READ THE LIEN LAW REQUIREMENT INTO THE CONTRACT (CT APP).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PLACEMENT OPTIONS, A CHILD REMOVED FROM SCHOOL WHEN SHE... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT...