You are here: / / THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR...
,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DISQUALIFYING CLAIMANT FROM FUTURE WAGE REPLACEMENT BENEFITS, MATTER REMITTED SO THAT ASPECT OF THE PENALTY CAN BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board must provide some explanation of the discretionary sanction against claimant disqualifying him from future benefits. The Board had found that claimant misrepresented his physical condition, based upon video surveillance evidence. The Third Department held there was sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding on the misrepresentation claim before it, but an explanation for prohibiting future claims was required before that aspect of the penalty could be reviewed on appeal:

Claimant also challenges the Board’s imposition of the discretionary sanction disqualifying him from receiving future wage replacement benefits. By not providing any reason for its imposition of this discretionary penalty, the Board failed to satisfy its obligation to “provide some basis for appellate review” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted so that the Board can fulfill its obligation and “provide some explanation for its determination in this regard” … . Matter of Papadakis v Fresh Meadow Power NE LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08728, Third Dept 12-29-18

 

You might also like
Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict
DEFENDANT’S PLEA TO A PROBATION VIOLATION WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND MUST BE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​
SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
As a Matter of Discretion, the Court Can Grant a Separate Property Credit for Property Which Was Originally Separate But Which Was “Transmuted” into Marital Property (Overruling Precedent)—the Credit Was Properly Denied Here
ALTHOUGH CONSENT ORDERS ARE GENERALLY NOT APPEALABLE, HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER MOTHER WAS ABLE TO CONSENT IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD CANNOT VETO THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES (THIRD DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.27 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DIRECTIVES; THE DISSENT ARGUED DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 202.27 WAS IMPROPER AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE PLACED TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S ENROLLMENT IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AS THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (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

LEASE INCLUDED AN EXPRESS PROVISION ALLOWING TENANT TO WITHHOLD RENT IF THE... COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEES RELATED BACK TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS...