You are here: / / THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER A PRIOR ELBOW INJURY ADDED TO...

THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER A PRIOR ELBOW INJURY ADDED TO THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT SHOULDER INJURY; THE BOARD DEPARTED FROM PRECEDENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a shoulder injury should not have been offset by a prior award for an elbow injury. Rather, whether the second injury resulted in an increased loss of use should have been considered:

… [T]he Board credited Coniglio’s [the employer’s expert’s] opinion of a 20% SLU as being consistent with the guidelines and expressly declined to add any additional loss of use. …

… [W]e note that the Board has previously determined that adding value for posterior extension to an overall SLU award that also includes a documentation of deficits of flexion or abduction is consistent with the guidelines … . The Board did not address Coniglio’s failure to add any value for his finding of a posterior extension defect to his overall SLU calculation and, as such, has not provided a rational basis for departing from its precedent. Accordingly, its finding of a 20% SLU of the left arm must also be reversed and the matter remitted for further consideration by the Board … . Matter of Kromer v UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 2022 NY Slip Op 04072, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Here claimant’s prior schedule loss of use (SLU) award for an elbow injury was not considered in connection with the SLU for the subsequent shoulder injury, a departure from precedent. Because the departure from precedent was not explained, the decision was reversed and remitted.

 

You might also like
Arbitrator Did Not Have the Authority (CPLR 7511) to Modify an Award by Adding Interest, Even If Interest Should Have Been Awarded as a Matter of Law
HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY IN PETITIONER’S HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED.
In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence
THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALFORD PLEA WOULD BE PREMISED ON HIS ABILITY TO APPEAL A GRAND-JURY EVIDENCE ISSUE; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD SUCH CONDITIONAL PLEAS ARE GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED IN NEW YORK; MATTER SENT BACK TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND PROOF OF A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
ONLY SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, NOT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUSTIFIES REMOVAL OF NAMED EXECUTORS, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
WHETHER PLAINTIFF USED ONE OR BOTH HANDS TO MANIPULATE A HOSE WHILE STANDING ON A LADDER WHICH COLLAPSED OR SLIPPED WAS RELEVANT ONLY TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (THIRD DEPT).
LAWSUIT SEEKING TO ENJOIN JUDICIAL SALARY INCREASES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (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

AFTER TRIGGERING A SECURITY ALARM AT A SPORTING GOODS STORE, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED... A LEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CORPORATION AND DEFENDANTS (ONE OF WHOM WAS A MEMBER...