In an opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department upheld the determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board that the claimant, who was bitten by a tick, had established a claim for Lyme disease and was entitled to compensation for “motor neuron disease, as well as consequential anxiety and stress disorder.” In the Matter of Bailey v Ben Ciccone, Inc., et al, 515309, 3rd Dept. 3-14-13
n an opinion by Justice Rose, the Third Department reversed the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board because the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge refused to allow the carrier to further develop the record (by calling witnesses). The Court stated: “It is axiomatic that both the claimant and the employer or its workers’ compensation carrier are entitled to introduce witnesses in compensation proceedings…”. In the Matter of Mason v Glens Falls Ready Mix, et al, 514744, 3rd Dept. 3-14-13
“The doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable to determinations of quasi-judicial administrative agencies such as the” Workers’ Compensation Board with respect to “findings of fact that are necessary for an administrative agency to reach.” Here the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination of the duration of the work-related injury was given preclusive effect in a related personal injury action. Judge Pigott wrote a strong dissent, arguing in part that the finding was necessarily a mixture of fact and law, not subject to the collateral estoppel principle. Auqui v Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 00950 [20 NY3d 1035], CtApp 2-14-13
“The protection against lawsuits brought by injured workers that is afforded to employers by Workers’ Compensation Law [sections] 22 and 29(6) also extends to entities that are alter egos of the entity which employs the plaintiff …”. Quizhpe vs Luvin Construction Corp., 2012-01175, Index No. 21761/06 Second Dept. 2-6-13
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy