You are here: / / STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID...

STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED, DENIAL OF CLAIM AFFIRMED.

The Third Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support claimant's allegation he was injured in an accident which no one witnesses and for which claimant did not seek immediate attention medical attention. The court noted that the presumption that unwitnessed accidents arose from employment did not create a presumption that an accident had happened:

… Workers' Compensation Law § 21, “which affords a presumption that an unwitnessed or unexplained workplace accident arose out of the injured person's employment, . . . cannot be utilized to demonstrate that an accident occurred in the first place”… . Matter of Siennikov v Professional Grade Constr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01889, 3rd Dept 3-17-16

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (STATUTORY PRESUMPTION INJURY AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID NOT CREATED A PRESUMPTION THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED)

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER OF THE DRIVER WHO KILLED A BICYCLIST WHEN ATTEMPTING TO LEAVE THE EMPLOYER’S PREMISES IS LIABLE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT (1) THE EMPLOYER’S SPECIAL USE OF THE AREA WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, (2) A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EMPLOYEE (MASTER-SERVANT) GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO CONTROL THE EMPLOYEE, AND (3) PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT).
The Absence of Proof Defendants Disclosed Slanderous Statements Included in Letters to Plaintiff Precluded a “Name-Clearing” Hearing/The Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Consider “Ostracism and Rejection” Damages Absent Proof Defendants Were Responsible for Republication of the Slanderous Remarks by Third Persons
Lump Sum Settlement with Third Party Barred Transfer of Employer’s Liability for Future Medical Payments to the Special Fund
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROPERLY DENIED THE FOIL REQUEST FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON THE GROUND THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FURTHER INQUIRY REQUIRED.
BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT).
Police Properly Entered the Apartment (Warrantless Entry) With the Consent of a “Lease Enforcement Officer” Who Believed the Apartment Was Occupied by “Squatters”
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INTOXICATED AND TRESPASSING, WAS INJURED FALLING THROUGH AN OPENING IN THE FLOOR OF A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S PRESENCE WAS FORESEEABLE AND PLAINTIFF’S INTOXICATION WAS NOT A SUPERSEDING CAUSE AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

CARRIER’S INABILITY TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CLAIMANT... PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE OF THE COM...