You are here: / / NO SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) BENEFITS CALCULATED BASED UPON THE LOSS OF...

NO SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) BENEFITS CALCULATED BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE KNEE AND ANKLE SEPARATELY, AS OPPOSED A CALCULATION BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE LEG AS A WHOLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not entitled to schedule loss of use (SLU) benefits calculated on loss of use of his knee and ankle, as opposed to SLU calculated on loss of use of his leg generally:

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) sets forth SLU awards that the Board may make resulting from permanent injuries to certain body parts, losses of hearing or vision and facial disfigurements. This Court has observed that such awards are not given for particular injuries, but rather “for the residual physical and functional impairments” … . Consistent with this observation, neither the statute nor the Board's guidelines lists the ankle or the knee as body parts lending themselves to separate SLU awards. Rather, impairments to these extremities are encompassed by awards for the loss of use of the leg … . ​Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 05981, Third Dept 9-6-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (NO SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) BENEFITS CALCULATED BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE KNEE AND ANKLE SEPARATELY, AS OPPOSED A CALCULATION BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE LEG AS A WHOLE (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Nature of a “Turn-Key” or “Design-Build” Contract Explained—Three-Year Statute of Limitations for Malpractice Applied to Defendant Architects Who Were Engaged Solely to Design, Not Build, the Renovations
Misspellings Did Not Render Signatures Invalid
THE WIFE’S TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE ARREARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF THE WIFE’S APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE, NOT THE PRIOR DATE WHEN SHE BECAME UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).
THE TRIAL PROOF COULD BE INTERPRETED TO SUPPORT AN INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT SECOND) OR AN INTENT TO CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT THIRD); DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THAT COUNT (THIRD DEPT).
AN INMATE’S RELEASE ON PAROLE DOES NOT RENDER HIS APPEAL OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION MOOT (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WHEN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS MADE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED AND PROSECUTED; THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT BEFORE COUNTY COURT, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
Judge’s Failure to Recuse Himself Was an Abuse of Discretion/Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply with a Condition Precedent Mandated Summary Judgment to Defendants
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTATE IT HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN HOW IT CAME INTO POSSESSION OF THE NOTE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROTECTS AGAINST TERMINATION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYEE’S... FIREFIGHTER’S FALL EXITING AN AMBULANCE WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING...