You are here: / / THE EMPLOYER’S REQUEST, AT THE HEARING, TO CROSS-EXAMINE CLAIMANT’S...
,

THE EMPLOYER’S REQUEST, AT THE HEARING, TO CROSS-EXAMINE CLAIMANT’S PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEVANT REGULATION IS MANDATORY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) should have granted the employer’s request, made at the hearing, to cross-examine the claimant’s physician, who had submitted a report. The Court of Appeals noted that the relevant language in the regulation was mandatory (“shall”):

The rule at issue here provides that, if “the employer or its carrier or special fund desires to produce for cross-examination an attending physician whose report is on file, the referee shall grant an adjournment for such purpose” (12 NYCRR 300.10 [c] …). The mandatory nature of this language contrasts with the language used in the Board’s other rules governing adjournment of hearings, which afford referees discretion and create exceptions to otherwise mandatory rules. For example, if the employer fails to present evidence as directed by the Board, the referee “may adjourn the hearing” and, if the employer fails to present evidence on the adjourned date, the referee “shall proceed to make a decision unless” the referee finds “extraordinary circumstances” warranting “a further adjournment” … . Under the plain language of the rule, the employer properly exercised its rights by making its request at a hearing on the claim prior to the WCLJ’s ruling on the merits … . Matter of Lazalee v Wegman’s Food Mkts., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06343, CtApp 12-12-23

Practice Point: In a Workers’ Compensation hearing, the employer’s request for an adjournment to cross-examine the claimant’s physician must be granted.

 

You might also like
QUALIFIED, NOT ABSOLUTE, PRIVILEGE APPLIES WHEN THE SUBJECT OF THE ALLEGED DEFAMATION HAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS (CT APP).
Six-Year Breach of Contract Statute of Limitations Applied to Third Party Beneficiaries (Here the Plaintiff Villages and Towns) of Contracts Between the Counties and the Defendant Sewer-Construction Companies
AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED WHILE HIS PAROLE OFFICER WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE; DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS THEN SEARCHED AND HEROIN WAS FOUND; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED UNDER THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD, NOT THE “RIGHT TO INQUIRE” STANDARD APPLIED BY THE SUPPRESSION COURT (CT APP). ​
VETERINARY CLINIC MAY BE LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG IN THE CLINIC’S WAITING ROOM, BUT THE CLINIC’S LIABILITY SHOULD NOT TURN ON WHETHER THE CLINIC WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IMPOSED ON DOG-OWNERS (CT APP).
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, WHICH WAS BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S MAKING U-TURNS, AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REARGUE THE MOTION AND PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U-TURNS WERE, IN FACT, ILLEGAL (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S REFUSING TO TESTIFY WAS DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THE WRITTEN COOPERATION AGREEMENT, HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT BEFORE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL AND SUSPENDED IN NEW YORK JUST AFTER DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S DEPRIVATION-OF-HIS-RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL AND INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE ARGUMENTS WERE REJECTED; THE ATTORNEY WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF HIS SUSPENSION OR THE PENDING SUSPENSION PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).
FAMILY COURT MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE MOTHER, WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED, WITH HER CHILD, WHO WAS REMOVED AFTER A NEGLECT FINDING, THE APPLICABILITY OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND THE ADA’S INTERPLAY WITH NEW YORK LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED IN THE JUDGMENT OF... THE COURTS CAN COMPEL (MANDAMUS) THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION (IRC)...