You are here: / / THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY”...

THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.

The Third Department explained the different purposes for the terms “loss of wage-earning capacity” and “wage-earning capacity:”

The employer argues that claimant’s compensation must be calculated based upon his wage-earning capacity pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) and that, because he was working at full wages, his wage-earning capacity was 100% at the time of classification and that the finding of a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity was accordingly unlawful.

The term “loss of wage-earning capacity” was added in 2007 as part of the reform of the Workers’ Compensation Law …, and “is used at the time of classification to set the maximum number of weeks over which a claimant with a permanent partial disability is entitled to receive benefits” … . In contrast, wage-earning capacity is used to determine a claimant’s weekly rate of compensation … . As this Court recently explained in detail, “the legislative history makes clear that ‘wage-earning capacity’ and ‘loss of wage-earning capacity’ are to be used for separate and distinct purposes” … . Indeed, “[u]nlike wage-earning capacity, which can fluctuate based on the claimant’s employment status, loss of wage-earning capacity was intended to remain fixed” … . In light of the separate and distinct purposes for the calculation of a loss of wage-earning capacity and the wage-earning capacity, the Board was free to establish the duration of claimant’s benefits by classifying him with a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity in order to set a fixed durational limit on potential benefits. Matter of Barrett v New York City Dept. of Transp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01037, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED)

You might also like
THE PLANNING BOARD’S GRANT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BARN TO BE USED TO HOST SEASONAL PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED; THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTORS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN CODE AND FOUND THERE WOULD BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TRAFFIC OR NOISE (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CARRIER HAD WAIVED ITS DEFENSE THAT THE INJURIES DID NOT ARISE OUT OF CLAIMAINT’S EMPLOYMENT BY FAILING TO SERVE A PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT, CLAIMANT WAS STILL REQUIRED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SUCH A CONNECTION (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RELEASE EXECUTED BY PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO TWO DEFENDANTS PRECLUDED AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY A THIRD DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE RELEASE, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION FOR COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER OBSERVING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, DIRECTING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR TO RETURN TO THE CAR AFTER IT PULLED INTO A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, AND DETAINING THE DEFENDANT AND CONDUCTING A SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE HOMEOWNER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR (THIRD DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE OLDER CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE BY FATHER; THE ABUSE AND DERIVATIVE ABUSE PETITION WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE VICTIM’S JAW WAS FRACTURED, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW SECTION 10 (10); DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ASSAULT THIRD (THIRD DEPT).
THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER MADE A LEFT TURN INTO TO THE PATH OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WITHOUT CHECKING FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY SEAL RECORD OF A MISDEMEANOR DRUG CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND GRANTED.

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

EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO CLAIMANT SINCE THE... ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY...