You are here: / / THE BOARD’S FINDINGS ON THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER’S DISABILITY...
,

THE BOARD’S FINDINGS ON THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER’S DISABILITY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD; REVERSAL WAS REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board’s findings about the extent of petitioner’s disability were not based on the medical evidence presented at the hearing:

Inasmuch as “it appears that the Board’s decision may have been based on an inaccurate reading of the record or incomplete facts, it cannot be sustained” … . ” ‘Since this Court has limited power to review the sufficiency of evidence and lacks the ability to weigh conflicting proof’ ” … , we cannot ascertain what decision the Board would have reached had it accurately reviewed the reports and testimony that were before it, and, therefore, the matter must be remitted to the Board for further proceedings so that a proper assessment of the evidence can occur … . Matter of Ayars v Navillus Tile Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 04691, Third Dept 9-21-23

Practice Point: If the Workers’ Compensation Board’s findings on the extent of the worker’s disability are not supported by the medical evidence submitted to the Board, the determination must be reversed.

 

You might also like
SERVICES PROVIDED TO A DISABLED MAN BY THE NYS OFFICE OF PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COULD NOT BE CURTAILED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FUNDS (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defendant Alleged He Would Not Have Pled Guilty Absent His Attorney’s Affirmative Misinformation About the Deportation Consequences of the Plea
NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD HOUSED FOR MORE THAN FIVE WEEKS IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM BECAUSE NO APPROPRIATE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY WAS AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S COLLIDING WITH THE REAR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR 3RD DEPT.
Summary Judgment Finding Derivative Neglect Should Not Have Been Granted
ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT.
UBER DRIVERS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (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

FATHER’S OBJECTIONS (EXCEPTIONS) TO THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF HIS SON TO... PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS IN THE CROSSWALK WHEN PLAINTIFF’S CAR MADE A...