You are here: / / “Total Industrial Disability” Finding Affirmed—Partially...

“Total Industrial Disability” Finding Affirmed—Partially Disabled Claimant Was Deemed Unable to Find Work Based Upon His Age, Education and Work History

The Third Department determined claimant, who had a marked permanent partial disability, was properly found to “totally industrially disabled” because his disability, coupled with his age, limited education and other factors, made it impossible for claimant to find work:

“A claimant who has a permanent partial disability may nonetheless be classified as totally industrially disabled where the limitations imposed by the work-related disability, coupled with other factors, such as limited educational background and work history, render the claimant incapable of gainful employment” … . Whether a claimant suffers from a total industrial disability is “a question of fact for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” … . Matter of Rose v Roundpoint Constr, 2015 NY Slip Op 00421, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

You might also like
THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES’ (DCJS’S) DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS TERMINATED “FOR CAUSE” WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS; THE DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED AS “ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS” (THIRD DEPT).
CONSULTANT HIRED TO EVALUATE TEACHERS WAS AN EMPLOYEE.
Reference to Statute Cured Any Omissions from the Description of the Elements of the Offense Charged in a Superior Court Information
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SEQRA RE THE PROPOSED SEWER DISTRICT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 AND WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A RESPONSE TO HIS COMPLAINT TO THE TOWN RE THE SEWER DISTRICT (THIRD DEPT).
Hearsay Deemed Insufficient to Support Determination
COMPUTER DESKTOP ENGINEER NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF JOB PLACEMENT SERVICE.
Superior Court Information Was Jurisdictionally Defective—The Offenses Were Not the Same As, or Lesser Included Offenses of, Those In the Felony Complaint
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING SUPREME COURT, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.

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

Wrong Valuation Date Did Not Require Striking of Appraisal Report/Presumption... Claimant’s PTSD Linked to 6-Day Stint at the Site of the Collapse of the...