You are here: / Workers' Compensation

BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant should have been found totally disabled:

​

After injuring her back in October 2007, claimant underwent multiple back surgeries, including a L3-4 and L4-5 spinal fusion in December 2010 and fusions at L4-5 and L5-S1 in August 2012. A spinal cord stimulator was implanted in August 2013. Claimant’s physician, Clifford Ameduri, was treating her for postoperative back pain. Ameduri completed a “Doctor’s Report of MMI/Permanent Impairment” form C-4.3 in August 2014 that classified her condition as permanent and assigned a class five severity F rating to her lumbar back injury under the New York State Guidelines for Determining Permanent Impairment and Loss of Wage Earning Capacity (2012). Ameduri also rated her functional capacity at “less than sedentary work,” a category defined as “unable to meet the requirement of sedentary work.”… Nowhere in this record does Ameduri opine that claimant sustained only a permanent partial disability. Guy Corkhill, the physician who conducted an independent medical examination on behalf of the workers’ compensation carrier, assigned a class four severity G rating to claimant’s back condition. In his testimony, Corkhill agreed with Ameduri that it was “unlikely [claimant] would ever be able to return to meaningful employment.” Notwithstanding this medical testimony, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that claimant was capable of performing sedentary employment. In adopting Ameduri’s severity F rating, the Board further discredited Corkhill’s opinion as based primarily on claimant’s subjective complaint, notwithstanding Corkhill’s testimony that her subjective complaints comported with his objective findings.

Since the Board’s findings as to claimant’s ability to perform some type of sedentary work are contrary to the consistent medical proof presented, the Board’s finding of a permanent partial disability and a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity is not supported by substantial evidence in the record … . Claimant maintains, and we agree, that the record actually warrants a finding of a permanent total disability. Matter of Wohlfeil v Sharel Ventures, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08060, Third Dept 11-16-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/SEDENTARY WORK (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY  (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, BOARD’S FINDING CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEDENTARY EMPLOYMENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, FINDING OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

FINDING THAT CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING LIGHT WORK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the evidence did not support the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s (WCLF’s) conclusion that the claimant was capable of performing light work. The matter was remitted:

… [N]one of the physicians who treated claimant’s physical injuries rated him as having the functional ability to perform light work. To the contrary, they rated him as being able to perform less than sedentary work or sedentary work … . The WCLJ, who was not a medical doctor, appears to have undertaken his own independent analysis of the medical evidence in concluding that claimant was capable of performing light work. Inasmuch as this was a significant factor that was considered in determining claimant’s loss of wage-earning capacity, the WCLJ’s finding that claimant sustained a 60% loss of wage-earning capacity, adopted by the Board, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for further proceedings to ascertain claimant’s loss of wage-earning capacity in accordance with the 2012 Guidelines. Matter of Golovashchenko v Asar Intl. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06500, Third Dept 9-14-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FINDING THAT CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING LIGHT WORK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT))

CLAIMANT, DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S UNWITNESSED DEATH DUE TO CARDIAC ARREST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, decedent’s husband, was entitled to Workers’ Compensation death benefits. Decedent was found on the floor after she had complained of job-related stress and chest pains. Decedent’s death certificate indicated that she died from cardiac arrhythmia due to arteriosclerotic heart disease with obesity as a contributing factor:

Here, there is no dispute that claimant was entitled to the statutory presumption in that decedent suffered a cardiac arrest while working in her office and died shortly thereafter as a result, an event with no known witnesses … . The carrier’s cardiologist reviewed decedent’s medical records and concluded that while it was not certain exactly what happened, decedent’s cardiac arrest was most likely due to preexisting coronary artery disease and was not causally related, finding insufficient evidence that it was due to work-related stress … . This evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of compensability, shifting the burden to claimant to demonstrate a causal relationship … .​

Claimant presented the report and testimony of an internal medicine physician who reviewed decedent’s medical records and concluded that she had underlying asymptomatic cardiac atherosclerotic disease, and that her work-related stress was a “significant contributing factor” that caused her sudden cardiac death. He relied on the emergency department records and the fact that decedent had no known history of cardiac symptoms or treatment. While claimant’s physician acknowledged that decedent had other cardiac risk factors, such as obesity and a daily smoking habit, decedent’s “work-related illness need not be the sole or even the most direct cause of death, provided that the claimant demonstrates that the compensable illness was a contributing factor in the decedent’s demise”… . Matter of Lavigne v Hannaford Bros. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 06121, Third Dept 8-10-17

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEATH BENEFITS, CLAIMANT, DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S UNWITNESSED DEATH DUE TO CARDIAC ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/DEATH BENEFITS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, CLAIMANT, DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S UNWITNESSED DEATH DUE TO CARDIAC ARREST (THIRD DEPT))/CARDIAC ARREST (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, CLAIMANT, DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S UNWITNESSED DEATH DUE TO CARDIAC ARREST (THIRD DEPT))

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)

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