You are here: / / THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD MISINTERPRETED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION...

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD MISINTERPRETED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION 4 TO LIMIT SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG TO 10% (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined “special consideration 4” of the Workers’ Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment was not properly interpreted, resulting in a schedule loss of use (SLU) for claimant’s leg that is inappropriately low (10%):

Claimant argues that the Board’s interpretation of special consideration 4 and the instructions regarding its application is irrational and runs afoul of the purpose of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3). We agree. “SLU awards are not given for particular injuries, but they are made to compensate an injured worker for his or her loss of earning power or capacity that is presumed to result, as a matter of law, from the residual permanent physical and functional impairments to statutorily-enumerated body members”  … . * * *

Relying on the plain language of the 2018 guidelines, the Board reads special consideration 4 as making no provision for additional values due to flexion or extension deficits, reasoning that the enumerated SLU range already takes into account range of motion deficits…. . …

Although special consideration 4 may arguably be said to rationally limit an SLU value when it is based upon only a finding of chondromalacia patella, the Board’s interpretation of the foregoing instructions results in the obvious inequity identified by claimant and cannot be upheld. To accept the Board’s interpretation would be to sanction an application of the 2018 guidelines that results in claimants with only meniscus tears routinely receiving SLU awards far greater than 7½ to 10% based upon their range of motion deficits … . Matter of Blue v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2022 NY Slip Op 03565, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: In determining the schedule loss of use (SLU) for claimant’s leg, the Workers’ Compensation Board misinterpreted “special consideration 4” resulting in an inappropriately low SLE percentage.

 

You might also like
Odor of Burnt Marijuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant and Vehicle
NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS.
ATTEMPTS TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT, INCLUDING VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT, WERE INEFFECTUAL, THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED AT AND THE EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED FROM THE SARATOGA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE (THIRD DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IF THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE REFEREE’S REPORT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TO SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Common Law or Implied Indemnification Explained
THE TRUST PROVISION IN THE WILL WAS INVALID FOR LACK OF A BENEFICIARY; SURROGATE’S COURT’S CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILL PROPERLY EXPRESSED THE DECEDENT’S INTENT (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Make Sufficient Effort to Transport Injured Inmate to His Hearing Required Annulment

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 EDUCATION LAW PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE... HARVEY WEINSTEIN’S CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND RAPE CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED (FIRST...