You are here: / Workers' Compensation

CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s failure to comply with the formatting requirements supported the denial of claimant’s application for Board review:

The Board’s instructions for the RB-89 form regarding question number 13 required that claimant specify the date and document ID numbers of “the transcripts, documents, reports, exhibits, and other evidence in the Board’s file that are relevant to the issues and grounds being raised for review.” In response, claimant answered, “[a]ll hearings, transcripts and documents in [the Board] file are pertinent to the outstanding issue.” By merely referencing the entire Board case file in response to question number 13, claimant failed to comply with the prescribed formatting and completion requirements … . Accordingly, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant’s application for Board review, and its decision will not be disturbed … . Matter of Hirschbeck v Office of the Commr. of Major League Baseball, 2020 NY Slip Op 01870, Third Dept 3-16-20

 

EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the employer’s answer to a question in its application for Board review of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s award of benefits was adequate and did not warrant denial of the application. The question concerned when the objection to the ruling was made:

When the employer filed its application for Board review on March 2, 2018, question number 15 on that form, as well as the accompanying instructions in effect at that time, requested that it “[s]pecify the objection or exception interposed to the ruling and when the objection or exception was interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii)” … . In response to question number 15, the employer stated, “Upon information and belief an exception/objection was noted prior to the conclusion of the hearing.” The Board found that the employer’s response was incomplete because the employer “failed to identify the date it interposed an objection on the record in response to [question number] 15” … . Although the Board has consistently found that listing the hearing date at which the objection or exception was made constitutes a complete response to question number 15, the regulation only requires the applicant to state when the objection or exception occurred … . Here, the employer’s response to question number 15 stated when the objection was made, that is, at “the conclusion of the hearing,” at which time the employer stated, “A protective exception, please, your Honor.” In our view, the employer’s response stated when the objection occurred, … and, therefore, the response was complete and complied with the Board’s regulatory formatting requirements … . …

We recognize that, in Subject No. 046-1119, the Board announced that “the [hearing] date when the objection or exception was interposed must be listed” in response to question number 15 on the RB-89 form … . However, Subject No. 046-1119 — as well as the Board’s other November 2018 documents providing clarification of its formatting requirements … postdate the instant March 2018 application for Board review and are, therefore, of no import here … . Matter of Granica v Town of Hamburg, 2020 NY Slip Op 01542, Third Dept 3-5-20

 

BENEFICIARY OF DECEASED CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO THE REMAINING WEEKS OF CLAIMANT’S NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT DISABILITY AWARD WHERE CLAIMANT’S DEATH WAS NOT RELATED TO THE COMPENSATED INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Colangelo, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, in a matter of first impression, determined that claimant’s surviving child was entitled to the weeks of the nonschedule permanent disability award which remained upon claimant’s death, where claimant’s death was not related to the compensated injury:

“With respect to schedule injuries, SLU [schedule loss of use] awards are made to compensate for the loss of earning power or capacity that is presumed to result, as a matter of law, from permanent impairments to statutorily-enumerated body members” … . “By contrast, compensation for a permanent partial disability that arises from a nonschedule injury, i.e., an injury to a body member not specifically enumerated in subsections (a)-(u) [of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3)], is based on a factual determination of the effect that the disability has on the [worker’s] future wage-earning capacity” … . In that regard, whereas an SLU award “is not allocable to any particular period of disability and is independent of any time that the [worker] might lose from work” … , a nonschedule permanent partial disability award under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) requires a calculation of a worker’s weekly rate of compensation using the worker’s average weekly wages and wage-earning capacity and “specifies the [duration or maximum] number of weeks the worker will receive that weekly sum[] based upon the [worker’s] percentage of lost wage-earning capacity” … . * * *

Until now, we have not had the occasion to address whether any remaining portion or weeks of a nonschedule permanent partial disability award is payable to the beneficiaries identified in Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4) upon a claimant’s death “arising from causes other than the [established] injury”… . Subdivision (3) includes both SLU [schedule loss of use] and nonschedule permanent partial disability awards … , and the unqualified language of subdivision (4) — which pertains to “[a]n award made to a claimant under subdivision three” … — neither distinguishes SLU awards from nonschedule permanent partial disability awards, nor contains any limiting language excepting nonschedule permanent partial disability awards from its scope. Given the unambiguous and unqualified language of subdivision (4) … , we see no basis to distinguish SLU and nonschedule awards where the plain language of subdivision (4) applies to any and all awards made under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3). Accordingly, the language employed in Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4) reflects that the Legislature intended this subdivision to apply to all permanent partial disability awards made pursuant to subdivision (3) — that is, both SLU and nonschedule permanent partial disability awards … . Matter of Green v Dutchess County BOCES, 2020 NY Slip Op 01546, Third Dept 3-5-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GRAVELY INJURED AND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH HIS EMPLOYER TO CONTRIBUTE, INDEMNIFY OR INSURE; THE EMPLOYER’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured while acting within the scope of his employment. Workers’ Compensation, therefore, was his exclusive remedy unless he was gravely injured or there was agreement with the employer:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 prohibits third-party claims for contribution or indemnification against an employer unless the employee has sustained a “grave injury” or there is a written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution to or indemnification of the third-party claimant … .

Here, in support of its motion, A.B.C. Tank established, prima facie, that there was no written agreement between the parties that required it to contribute, indemnify, or procure insurance … . Further, A.B.C. Tank established, prima facie, that the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment and that the plaintiff’s injuries did not constitute a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 … . McIntosh v Ronit Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01485, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO SIMULTANEOUSLY RECEIVE AN AWARD FOR A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was entitled to simultaneously receive an award for a schedule loss of use (SLU) and a permanent partial disability classification:

… Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) permits a simultaneous SLU award and nonschedule classification for impairments that arise out of the same work-related accident where the claimant has returned to work at preinjury wages. * * *

… [W]hen a claimant who has sustained a permanent impairment to a member has returned to work at preinjury wages, it is mere speculation that an award will ever be made for nonschedule injuries arising from the same accident. Although the Board may be appropriately concerned about the possibility of double payment or recovery if and when a claimant experiences actual lost wages, this circumstance was provided for within Matter of Taher v Yiota Taxi, Inc. (162 AD3d at 1290 n 2). Additionally, the withholding of an SLU award in favor of the “virtual banking” of nonschedule cap weeks adds unnecessary complexity in the event that a claimant suffers a death that is unrelated to the established sites of injury … .  We further note that the Board’s position strongly incentivizes injured claimants with schedule and nonschedule permanent impairments arising from the same work-related accident who are capable of returning to work at preinjury wages not to do so in order to collect a nonschedule award. Matter of Arias v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01429, Third Dept 2-27-20

 

THE PERIODS OF TIME WHEN CLAIMANT WAS DEEMED TEMPORARILY PERMANENTLY DISABLED AFTER SURGERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COUNTED AGAINST THE 300-WEEK CAP FOR HIS PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined the periods of time when claimant was deemed temporarily totally disabled following surgery should not have been counted against the 300-week cap for his permanent partial disability payments. The Third Department also held that a claimant need not seek reclassification before the exhaustion of the permanent partial disability award, as the Board had ruled:

We note that the WCLJs [Workers’ Compensation Law Judges] classified claimant as temporarily totally disabled following his two surgeries, which findings were supported by medical proof. Therefore, the Board did not comply with the statute when it counted the weeks during which claimant was classified as temporarily totally disabled against the cap for his nonschedule award for a permanent partial disability. Instead, the duration of his permanent partial disability nonschedule award (the running of the 300 weeks) should have been tolled while claimant was classified with a temporary total disability.  …

… [T]he durational benefit caps for nonschedule awards under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) apply to “all compensation payable under this paragraph” … . However, benefits paid during a period of temporary total disability are payable under a separate paragraph, section 15 (2) … . * * * Accordingly, temporary total disability benefits do not count towards the benefit caps for nonschedule awards under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w). Matter of Sanchez v Jacobi Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 01235, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

,

CORRECTION OFFICER NOT ENTITLED TO TWO-YEAR LEAVE OF ABSENCE; THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE FINDING PETITIONER’S PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION WITH AN INMATE WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined petitioner correction officer was not entitled to a two-year workers’ compensation leave of absence because there was support in the record for the finding petitioner was not assaulted. Petitioner was injured trying to prevent an inmate from swallowing contraband:

… [R]espondent advised petitioner that, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71, his employment would be terminated … because his absence from employment … exceeded one cumulative year. Petitioner asserted through counsel that he was entitled to a two-year leave of absence under Civil Service Law § 71 because his injuries resulted from an assault sustained during the performance of his duties. * * *

Pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71, an employee who “has been separated from [his or her] service by reason of a disability resulting from occupational injury” is “entitled to a leave of absence for at least one year.” If, however, “an employee has been separated from the service by reason of a disability resulting from an assault sustained in the course of his or her employment, he or she shall be entitled to a leave of absence for at least two years” … . * * *

Although the record demonstrates that the parolee was combative and refused orders to stop resisting and to surrender the contraband, there is no indication that the parolee directed any intentional physical act of violence toward petitioner before, during or after petitioner’s application of the body hold. Given the absence of such record evidence, respondent’s determination that petitioner’s injuries were not the result of an assault sustained during the course of employment had a sound basis in reason and, thus, was rational … . Matter of Froehlich v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2020 NY Slip Op 00652, Third Dept 1-30-20

,

THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS; THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S FINDING THAT THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT BINDING ON THE THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that third-party defendant I & G Group was plaintiff’s employer was not binding on the third-party plaintiffs because the third-party plaintiffs did not participate in the Workers’ Compensation proceedings. Therefore the matter has to be litigated and I & G Group’s motion for summary judgment should should not have been granted:

The Court of Appeals has … recognized that a decision by the worker’s compensation board may not be binding on parties who do not participate in its hearings. * * * “[U]nless the Legislature expands the definition of parties in interest, the unfortunate result will be that a duplicative proceeding must be held and the issue of compensability adjudicated anew because defendants never had a full and fair opportunity’ to litigate the question” … .

Here, because it is undisputed that appellants [third-party plaintiffs] were not given notice of the worker’s compensation hearing, and were not afforded the opportunity to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses, their third-party claims, in which they challenge the identity of plaintiff’s employer, should not have been dismissed as precluded by the board’s prior determination of that issue … . Martinez v 250 W. 43 Owner, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00058, First Dept 1-7-20

 

,

CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN UNLIMITED MEDICAL RELEASE AS OPPOSED TO A LIMITED RELEASE CONCERNING ONLY THOSE AREAS OF HIS BODY AT ISSUE IN THE CLAIM FOR BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant was not required to provide an unlimited medical release. Claimant should have been required to provide a release limited to those areas of his body which were at issue in the claim for benefits:

The Board’s regulations provide that a limited release is a “limited authorization to obtain relevant medical records regarding the prior medical history of the body part or illness at issue” (12 NYCRR 300.37 [b] [1] [iii]). It is applicable “if the claimant files a completed employee claim form and indicates on the form that he or she had a prior injury to the same body part or similar illness to the one(s) listed on the form” (12 NYCRR 300.37 [b] [1] [iii]). There is no question that, prior to filing his claim, claimant received medical treatment from various physicians for the same sites of injury dating back to at least 2011. It is evident from the record and the briefs that both parties agree that the employer is entitled to claimant’s past medical records for the claimed sites. That said, claimant maintains that the Board erred in requiring him to sign an open-ended HIPAA release, without limiting that release to treatment records pertaining to the claimed sites. Although the employer would certainly be entitled to the medical records of all providers, once identified, who treated the claimed sites, the fact remains that claimant was only obligated to provide a limited release for those providers. As such, we agree with claimant that the Board erred in directing him to provide an unlimited medical release. Matter of Trusewicz v Delta Envtl., 2019 NY Slip Op 09336, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

, , , , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH STRUCK HIM WHEN HE WAS STANDING IN THE ROADWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN; OTHER ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE DECISION INCLUDE THE EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY, THE TRUCK RENTAL COMPANIES’ LIABILITY, THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined plaintiff police officer was entitled to summary judgment against the driver of the tractor trailer which struck the officer who was standing in the roadway both under a common law negligence theory and under General Municipal Law 205-e. The court dealt with several other issues including: (1) whether a second police officer was engaged in an emergency operation, giving rise to the reckless disregard standard, when he stopped to assist the plaintiff who had made a traffic stop (the answer is no); (2) whether the second officer was liable based upon the position of his car (the answer is no, the car furnished a condition for the accident but was not the cause); (3) whether the injured officer’s recovery was confined to Workers’ Compensation (there is a question of fact whether the injury was “grave”); (4) whether the Graves Amendment protected the truck rental companies (the answer is yes); (5) whether vicarious liability applies to the truck driver’s employer (there is a question of fact on that issue). With respect to the common law negligence and the General Municipal Law 205-e causes of action, the court wrote:

… [T]he plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff was free from comparative negligence in order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of Burke’s [the truck driver’s] liability on the first cause of action [negligence]. * * *

When the light changed, Burke began his left turn onto northbound Midland Avenue. Prior to beginning his turn, Burke was aware that there was a police officer conducting a traffic stop on foot and a police car parked on the northbound side of Midland Avenue. Although Burke believed he could make the turn safely, the rear of the trailer hit the injured plaintiff. * * *

The plaintiffs also established … Burke’s liability as to … a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-e. … [T]hat statute permits a police officer to bring a tort claim for injuries sustained “while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by . . . superior officer[s]” where such injuries occur “directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments” … . In order to recover under the statute, “a police officer must demonstrate injury resulting from negligent noncompliance with a requirement found in a well-developed body of law and regulation that imposes clear duties” … .

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146(a) requires a driver to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any . . . pedestrian.” Here, the unrebutted evidence established a prima facie violation of § 1146(a), as it demonstrated that Burke failed to exercise due care to avoid hitting the injured plaintiff. Cioffi v S.M. Foods, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 09251, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

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