You are here: / Workers' Compensation

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DETERMINATION THE UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT OCCURRED WHILE DECEDENT WAS PERFORMING WORK-RELATED DUTIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the deceased worker’s (claimant’s husband’s) statement to his wife indicating he fell from a ladder while doing his work on a subway car, coupled with a supervisor’s testimony decedent left work early holding his stomach, constituted substantial evidence supporting the claim for death benefits. Although the accident was not witnessed, and no report of the incident was made, the statutory presumption that the accident was work-related was not applicable:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) provides a statutory presumption that “an unwitnessed accident which occurred ‘within the time and place limits’ of employment arose out of that employment” … . This presumption, however, “cannot be used to establish that an accident occurred” …  and “does not wholly relieve [a claimant] of the burden of demonstrating that the accident occurred in the course of, and arose out of, [his or] her employment” … . Significantly, whether a claimant’s injury resulted from an accident that arose out of and in the course of his or her employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … .

Although the Board applied the presumption set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), we conclude that it is inapplicable here given that the issue in dispute is whether decedent was performing his duties at work when he sustained the injuries that led to his death, which is dispositive of whether the injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. …

Decedent’s statement to claimant is the most direct evidence that he sustained his fatal injuries while performing his duties at work. Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 118, “[d]eclarations of a deceased employee concerning the accident shall be received in evidence and shall, if corroborated by the circumstances or other evidence, be sufficient to establish the accident and the injury.” Under the circumstances presented here, we find that claimant’s testimony, together with that of the supervisor who witnessed decedent holding his stomach, provided sufficient corroboration of decedent’s statement … . Matter of Silvestri v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 06123, Third Dept 8-9-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEATH BENEFITS, UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DETERMINATION THE UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT OCCURRED WHILE DECEDENT WAS PERFORMING  WORK-RELATED DUTIES (THIRD DEPT))/DEATH BENEFITS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DETERMINATION THE UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT OCCURRED WHILE DECEDENT WAS PERFORMING  WORK-RELATED DUTIES (THIRD DEPT))

PROOF THAT CLAIMANT’S PROSTATE CANCER WAS CAUSED BY TOXINS TO WHICH CLAIMANT WAS EXPOSED AS A FIREFIGHTER WAS SPECULATIVE, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the evidence linking claimant’s prostate cancer to exposure to toxins as a firefighter was properly rejected as speculative:

​

Lawrence Garbo, an oncologist appointed as the impartial specialist by the full Board, reported, based upon his review of the relevant record evidence, that claimant did not present with any elevated risk factors typically associated with prostate cancer and that the incidence of new cases of prostate cancer in claimant’s “age group is well under 0.5%.” Garbo stated that although claimant had been exposed to inhalant toxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and diesel exhaust, he could not accurately quantify, or describe the extent of, that exposure. Nevertheless, Garbo concluded that it was “reasonable to assume that [claimant’s] employment as a firefighter for 24 years may have [had] a causal relationship to the development of prostate cancer.” In his testimony, however, Garbo conceded that he was unaware of claimant’s other previous employment consisting of cleaning furnaces and delivering kerosene or of the minimal number of exposure reports submitted by claimant during his 24-year career as a firefighter and that, upon being apprised of this information, he could not assign a causal relationship … . In view of the foregoing conflicting evidence, including the prevalence of prostate cancer and the other possible explanations for claimant contracting the condition … , we find that the full Board acted within its discretion in characterizing as speculative and ultimately rejecting the reports … with regard to the existence of a causal relationship … . Matter of Tucker v City of Plattsburgh Fire Dept., 2017 NY Slip Op 06013, Third Dept 8-2-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (PROOF THAT CLAIMANT’S PROSTATE CANCER WAS CAUSED BY TOXINS TO WHICH CLAIMANT WAS EXPOSED AS A FIREFIGHTER WAS SPECULATIVE, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/CANCER (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, PROOF THAT CLAIMANT’S PROSTATE CANCER WAS CAUSED BY TOXINS TO WHICH CLAIMANT WAS EXPOSED AS A FIREFIGHTER WAS SPECULATIVE, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

,

EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to resume receiving workers’ compensation benefits when he left prison for offenses related to the sale of drugs. The employer argued claimant should be disqualified because he received benefits while he had unreported income from selling drugs. The Third Department found that the plea allocutions were not sufficient evidence that claimant received income from drug sales:

In support of its assertion that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1), the employer submitted the transcripts of the 2012 plea allocutions resulting in claimant’s convictions for a violation of probation, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. As a result of recording or transcription errors, the transcript of the Alford plea proceeding is, at times, indecipherable. In addition, both transcripts of the 2012 criminal convictions were insufficient to establish that claimant received income while receiving workers’ compensation benefits or that he otherwise concealed his work status. Further, the employer did not submit the certificate of conviction for claimant’s 2010 convictions or the transcript of that underlying plea allocution. Although we agree with the employer that the Board incorrectly analyzed the 2012 criminal proceedings, we do not find that these inaccuracies warrant reversal and remittal to the Board, given that the Board primarily found that there was insufficient evidence to find a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a … . Matter of Pompeo v Auction Direct USA LP, 2017 NY Slip Op 05910, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT)/CRIMINAL LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, EMPLOYER DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT CLAIMANT RECEIVED UNREPORTED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF DRUGS, THEREFORE CLAIMANT WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS 3RD DEPT)

COMPENSATION FOR CARE BY CLAIMANT’S FAMILY MEMBER MUST BE PAID TO THE CLAIMANT, NOT THE FAMILY MEMBER 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined compensation paid directly to claimant’s wife for her care of claimant should have been paid to claimant:

This Court has previously held “that payment of the reimbursement of the costs for [a spouse’s] services must be made to [the] claimant, not to the spouse” … . The Board’s interpretation and reliance on Matter of Perrin v Builders Resource, Inc. (116 AD3d 1208 [2014]) to reach a different conclusion is misplaced. The issue in Matter of Perrin was whether the claimant was aggrieved by the pay rate set for the home health aide services provided by the claimant’s sister. In concluding that the appeal therein must be dismissed because the claimant was not aggrieved, this Court did not, as found by the Board, tacitly overrule any prior decisions of this Court with regard to whom reimbursement of payments is to be made with regard to home health care services provided by a spouse or family member. As we find no basis to depart from this Court’s prior case law that, under such circumstances, “[t]he amount of the award . . . must be paid only to the claimant,” the Board’s decision must be reversed … . Matter of Buckner v Buckner & Kourofsky, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 05650, 3rd Dept, 7-13-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (COMPENSATION FOR CARE BY CLAIMANT’S FAMILY MEMBER MUST BE PAID TO THE CLAIMANT, NOT THE FAMILY MEMBER 3RD DEPT)

EMPLOYER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CLAIMANT’S PREEXISTING CONDITION HINDERED HER EMPLOYABILITY, THEREFORE EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined claimant’s employer was not entitled to relief from the special disability fund. Claimant had work-related injuries. In order to recover from the fund, the employer was required to demonstrate the claimant: (1) had a preexisting disability (which affected her employability); and (2), the preexisting condition combined with the work-related injuries constituted a permanent disability greater than that caused by the work-related injuries alone:

“In order to be entitled to receive reimbursement from the Fund pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), the employer must demonstrate that the claimant suffered from (1) a preexisting permanent impairment that hindered job potential, (2) a subsequent work-related injury, and (3) a permanent disability caused by both conditions that is materially and substantially greater than would have resulted from the work-related injury alone”… . “The question with regard to the first requirement is not whether the preexisting condition is an obstacle or handicap to the claimant’s particular employment but, rather, whether it would be a hindrance to the claimant’s general employability” … .

We agree with the Board that the employer did not demonstrate that claimant’s preexisting asthma condition hindered, or was likely to hinder, her employability. The record reflects that, although claimant suffered from asthma since at least 1999, she was taking medication, including the use of an inhaler. The record contains no evidence that claimant was under any restrictions because of her asthma, that her asthma affected her ability to perform her job or that it hindered her employability. Notably, “preexisting conditions that are controlled by medication have been found, without more, not to constitute a hindrance to employability” … . Matter of Murphy v Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05500, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (EMPLOYER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CLAIMANT’S PREEXISTING CONDITION HINDERED HER EMPLOYABILITY, THEREFORE EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND 3RD DEPT)/SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, EMPLOYER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CLAIMANT’S PREEXISTING CONDITION HINDERED HER EMPLOYABILITY, THEREFORE EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND 3RD DEPT)

, , ,

INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff’s insurer (RLI), which opted not to defend this construction accident case, was required to indemnify the insurers who paid the $2.5 million settlement, both for the damages and the excess attorney’s fees. The plaintiff opted to hire a law firm other that the firm used by the workers’ compensation carrier (SLI). The workers’ compensation carrier paid $150/hour toward the other attorneys’ fees. The firm hired by plaintiff (Greenberg Traurig) charged $795/hr. The dissent argued the fees should have been capped at $150/hr. The other issue addressed by the court was the late notification of plaintiff’s insurer. The late notice was excused because of a good faith belief recovery was limited to workers’ compensation (and therefore subject to a policy exclusion):

​

RLI’s argument that the voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of amounts paid to Greenberg Traurig in defense of the underlying claim is without merit. Having chosen to deny coverage and not participate in the defense, RLI “excluded itself from any aspect of the [p]laintiff’s defense in the Vasquez estate’s action,” including the negotiation of attorneys’ fees and the selection of attorneys, as so found by the motion court, and cannot now be heard to complain. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the underlying action as “damages which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach” by RLI of the contract of insurance … .

We reject defendant’s argument that the $150 per hour contributed by SIF acts as a ceiling on fees … . Any agreement between SIF and plaintiff as to fees has no bearing on RLI’s responsibility to provide a defense, save as it pertains to any eventual allocation of defense costs as between the two carriers … . The record does not contain a copy of the SIF policy, so we are unable to make any determination as to whether the carriers share the costs of defense in equal parts as primary carriers, or whether defendant RLI is solely responsible. It may be noted that under RLI’s policy, competing primary insurers are to contribute on an equal basis. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp. v RLI Ins. Co., 20 17 NY Slip Op 04776, 1st Dept 6-13-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))

ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SELF-INSURANCE TRUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an action by the administrator of a Workers’ Compensation Law self-insurance trust [GSIT] against employers who ceased to fund the trust should not have been dismissed:

​

“Under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), a dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” … . [W]e agree with plaintiff that the documentary evidence submitted by defendants does not conclusively establish, as a matter of law, that defendants have no contractual liability to pay the assessments at issue. * * *

[T]he record establishes that in 1998 defendants and other contractors that were involved in the construction industry and subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law with respect to their employees established the GSIT in order to comply with the law and provide workers’ compensation benefits to their employees. Thereafter, all defendants made contributions and participated in the GSIT for varying periods of time, and there is no dispute that, by the end of the 2009 fiscal year, all defendants had ceased making contributions to the GSIT. NCA Comp, Inc. v 1289 Clifford Ave., 2017 NY Slip Op 04575, 4th Dept 6-9-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SELF-INSURANCE TRUST, ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SELF-INSURANCE TRUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/TRUSTS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, SELF-INSURANCE TRUST, ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS FOR A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SELF-INSURANCE TRUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

,

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S DETERMINATION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FINAL DESPITE HER LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS, PLAINTIFF CANNOT BRING A LAWSUIT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE HER ONLY REMEDY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant church’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The Workers’ Compensation insurance covered volunteers. The Workers’ Compensation Board (WBC), with no participation by plaintiff, determined plaintiff was a covered volunteer and was entitled to benefits. Plaintiff then sued the church. The Second Department noted that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding plaintiff was a covered volunteer entitled to benefits was final because it was not appealed. The suit was therefore precluded:

​

“[P]rimary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board” … . “[W]here the availability of workmen’s compensation hinges upon the resolution of questions of fact or upon mixed questions of fact and law, the plaintiff may not choose the courts as the forum for the resolution of such questions” … . “[A] plaintiff has no choice but to litigate this issue before the Board” … . Thus, the question of whether a particular person is an employee within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law is for the WCB to determine in the first instance … . The findings of the WCB are final and conclusive unless reversed on direct appeal … , and are not subject to collateral attack in a plenary action … . This is so even where, as here, the employer has filed a compensation claim on the employee’s behalf and the employee did not herself apply for or accept benefits … . …

Here, the church established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the WCB rendered a final determination that the injured plaintiff was eligible for Workers’ Compensation benefits under the Diocese’s policy, thereby precluding a personal injury action against it … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The coverage eligibility issue was necessarily determined by the WCB in a proceeding in which the injured plaintiff had the required notice and opportunity to be heard … . Moreover, a plaintiff cannot elect to waive benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law and proceed on a tort cause of action … . Aprile-Sci v St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church, 2017 NY Slip Op 04412, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (EXCLUSIVE REMEDY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S DETERMINATION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FINAL DESPITE HER LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS, PLAINTIFF CANNOT BRING A LAWSUIT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE HER ONLY REMEDY)/NEGLIGENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, SLIP AND FALL, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S DETERMINATION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FINAL DESPITE HER LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS, PLAINTIFF CANNOT BRING A LAWSUIT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE HER ONLY REMEDY)/SLIP AND FALL (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, NEGLIGENCE, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD’S DETERMINATION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FINAL DESPITE HER LACK OF PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS, PLAINTIFF CANNOT BRING A LAWSUIT, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE HER ONLY REMEDY)

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

The Third Department again explained the different purposes for “loss of wage-earning capacity” and “wage earning capacity” in the benefits determination:

Claimant contends that, because he had returned to work at full wages, the Board erred in finding that he had a 10% loss of wage-earning capacity. We disagree. The loss of wage-earning capacity “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 comparison, wage-earning capacity is used to determine a claimant’s weekly rate of compensation (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [5-a]). As this Court has recently explained, wage-earning capacity and loss of wage-earning capacity “are to be used for separate and distinct purposes” … . While wage-earning capacity “can fluctuate based on a claimant’s employment status,” the loss of wage-earning capacity remains fixed after the time of classification… . In other words, “the determination of a claimant’s loss of wage-earning capacity is designed to establish duration of benefits, a finding which is unrelated to the traditional purpose of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a), which is to calculate the weekly benefit rate” … . Accordingly, despite the fact that claimant was working at full wages, the Board was entitled to establish the loss of wage-earning capacity, which sets a fixed durational limit on potential benefits in the event that claimant incurs a subsequent reduction of wages as the result of his work-related injuries … . Matter of Perez v Bronx Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 04344, 3rd Dept 6-1-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY AND WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY EXPLAINED)/WAGE EARNING CAPACITY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY AND WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY EXPLAINED)/LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY AND WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY EXPLAINED)

CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.

The Third Department determined claimant was properly denied benefits for hearing loss. To qualify, claimant was required to show he used effective ear protection for three months. Claimant used the same type of ear protection he was using when he experienced the hearing loss:

Claimant contends that he has been removed from the workplace noise for the requisite time period. Claimant testified that he was exposed to workplace noise beginning in 1977 and that he has always worn the earplugs or headphones provided by the employer for protection from the noise. The statute requires, however, as relevant here, that claimant be removed from exposure to the harmful noise by “use of effective ear protection devices” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb). In light of claimant’s continued use of, for the three months in question, the same method of hearing protection against the workplace noise that he used while contracting occupational hearing loss, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant has not established, for the purpose of an accurate appraisal of his hearing loss, that he has been removed from the noise for the requisite time period … . We note that the statute requires claimant to use effective protection, but that it would be at the employer’s expense (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb). It does not appear, however, that claimant has availed himself of such protection, other than continuing to use the same devices he was wearing at the time that he contracted the hearing loss. Matter of Durkot v Newsday, 2017 NY Slip Op 04341, 3rd Dept 6-1-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)/HEARING LOSS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED)

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