You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S FINDING PLAINTIFF’S HEAD INJURY WAS A SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had proved at trial that he suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d) and was therefore entitled to the jury’s damages award. Plaintiff was unloading his car when defendant’s car struck plaintiff’s, which then struck plaintiff. Plaintiff came out of his shoes and was thrown to the sidewalk. He was knocked unconscious, suffered a gash on the back of his head, and suffered a concussion. Plaintiff presented evidence at trial of traumatic brain injury with cognitive loss. The trial judge had granted defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and dismissed the complaint, finding the evidence of serious injury insufficient:

Notwithstanding the negative scans, the absence of neurological testing and the subjectivity of plaintiff’s complaints, many of plaintiff’s reported symptoms, including his impaired concentration and balance and difficulty with problem solving and word retrieval, were objectively and personally observed by plaintiff’s primary care physician, who had the necessary historical knowledge and ability to compare his clinical, postaccident observations of plaintiff’s condition to his prior observations of plaintiff’s preaccident condition … . Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, the primary care physician’s treatment and assessment of plaintiff’s injuries were also informed by his review of the medical records of the rehabilitation psychologist and plaintiff’s physical and occupational therapists, which documented their objective observations of plaintiff’s physical and cognitive deficiencies and limited improvements over a period of nearly two years. Moreover, the bases for the primary care physician’s qualitative assessment of the seriousness of plaintiff’s injury, including his observations of plaintiff’s preaccident and postaccident conditions, as well as the accuracy of his memory, could “be tested during cross-examination, challenged by another expert and weighed by the trier of fact” … .

In our view, the comparative determination of plaintiff’s primary care physician, taken together with plaintiff’s defined head wound and subjective complaints immediately after the accident and continuing four years later, provided the jury with a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead it to the rational conclusion that plaintiff suffered a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and a significant limitation of use of a body function or system … . Rodman v Deangeles, 2017 NY Slip Op 01260, 3rd Dept 2-16-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S FINDING PLAINTIFF’S HEAD INJURY WAS A SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/NO-FAULT (EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S FINDING PLAINTIFF’S HEAD INJURY WAS A SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)/SERIOUS INJURY (NO-FAULT INSURANCE, EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY’S FINDING PLAINTIFF’S HEAD INJURY WAS A SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102, SUPREME COURT REVERSED)

,

ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT.

The Third Department determined the Worker’s Compensation Board correctly reduced attorney’s fees because the fee application form was not properly completed:

… [C]laimant’s counsel contends that the Board erred in reducing the WCLJ’s award of counsel fees based upon counsel’s failure to complete the OC-400.1 fee application form with respect to dates or time spent on the services rendered. Where counsel requests a fee in excess of $450, the Board’s rules and regulations provide that an attorney must file a written application for such fee using form OC-400.1 and that form must be “accurately completed” (12 NYCRR 300.17 [d] [1]). The form specifically instructs an attorney to, among other things, include the dates that the services were rendered and the time spent [FN3]. Such information, which is also required to be provided to a claimant, is relevant to the Board’s evaluation of the services rendered (see 12 NYCRR 300.17 [e], [f], [g]). “The Board may approve counsel fees ‘in an amount commensurate with the services rendered'” … , and its award will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion … . Here, counsel listed the services rendered, but inserted “35 hours” for the time spent on the services and did not indicate any dates upon which the services were performed or the amount of time spent on each service rendered. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the Board abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in finding the OC-400.1 fee application form defective and reducing the counsel fees to the maximum $450 fee permitted in the absence of the accurate completion of such application form … . Matter of Curcio v Sherwood 370 Mgt. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01047, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT)/ATTORNEYS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW, ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT)

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

The Third Department explained the different purposes for the terms “loss of wage-earning capacity” and “wage-earning capacity:”

The employer argues that claimant’s compensation must be calculated based upon his wage-earning capacity pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) and that, because he was working at full wages, his wage-earning capacity was 100% at the time of classification and that the finding of a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity was accordingly unlawful.

The term “loss of wage-earning capacity” was added in 2007 as part of the reform of the Workers’ Compensation Law …, and “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 contrast, wage-earning capacity is used to determine a claimant’s weekly rate of compensation … . As this Court recently explained in detail, “the legislative history makes clear that ‘wage-earning capacity’ and ‘loss of wage-earning capacity’ are to be used for separate and distinct purposes” … . Indeed, “[u]nlike wage-earning capacity, which can fluctuate based on the claimant’s employment status, loss of wage-earning capacity was intended to remain fixed” … . In light of the separate and distinct purposes for the calculation of a loss of wage-earning capacity and the wage-earning capacity, the Board was free to establish the duration of claimant’s benefits by classifying him with a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity in order to set a fixed durational limit on potential benefits. Matter of Barrett v New York City Dept. of Transp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01037, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED)

EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO CLAIMANT SINCE THE ACCIDENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT WAS NOT PAID COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE ENTIRE TIME SINCE THE ACCIDENT.

The Third Department determined that an employer who paid the claimant during the disability period was entitled to reimbursement from the award for the entire time beginning when the accident occurred, despite the fact that claimant was not awarded compensation for that entire period:

Claimant does not dispute that the employer paid him wages for the period of his disability prior to the schedule award and that the employer filed a timely claim for reimbursement with the Board as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) … . Claimant challenges the Board’s reimbursement directive upon the ground that the reimbursement here covers a period of time when there were no awards of compensation made, arguing that, as a result, the employer is not entitled to reimbursement of wages paid to claimant during those periods of time and that the amount of reimbursement should be reduced.

However, under settled law, where, as here, a claimant ultimately receives a schedule loss of use award, “an employer has the right to reimbursement for the full amount of wages paid during a claimant’s period of disability from the claimant’s schedule award of worker[s’] compensation benefits” … . * * *  Inasmuch as claimant received a schedule award compensating him for the partial loss of use of his right foot, the Board was correct in finding that the employer was entitled to full reimbursement out of that award for all of its advanced payment of wages to claimant during that time (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 [4] [a]). The fact that a temporary disability award was denied during part of that period based upon missing medical evidence in the Board’s record is not relevant to the employer’s entitlement to reimbursement. Matter of Newbill v Town of Hempstead, 2017 NY Slip Op 01049, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF WAGES PAID TO CLAIMANT SINCE THE ACCIDENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT WAS NOT PAID COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR THE ENTIRE TIME SINCE THE ACCIDENT)

DENIAL OF INMATE’S REQUEST FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY AND INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION BY EMPLOYEE ASSISTANT REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

The Third Department determined errors made by the hearing officer and employee assistant deprived the inmate of his constitutional right to meaningful employee assistance. The determination was annulled and expunged:

Petitioner contends, among other things, that the Hearing Officer improperly denied his request to have an inmate who was involved in the initial fight testify at the hearing. The Hearing Officer denied this inmate’s testimony as irrelevant, noting that “[a]t the time of [the] incident [,] this inmate was in the process of being restrained by security staff and was face down on the floor.” However, as respondent concedes, there is no proof in the record to substantiate the Hearing Officer’s conclusion. The fight occurred in the area where petitioner allegedly assaulted staff and the requested witness may have made observations helpful to petitioner’s defense. Consequently, the Hearing Officer’s denial of this witness based upon his own speculation as to the content of the witness’s testimony was error … .

… [I]it appears from the record that the assistant interviewed only six of the 30 inmates housed in petitioner’s cell block, five of whom refused to testify and one who provided a vague written statement. It is unclear from the record what attempts, if any, petitioner’s assistant made to interview the other inmates housed in his cell block who were present during the incident. In view of this, and given that the observations of such inmates could have potentially supported petitioner’s defense, petitioner was prejudiced by his assistant’s failure to interview them and by the Hearing Officer’s failure to remedy this deficiency … . Matter of Nance v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 01044, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (DENIAL OF INMATE’S REQUEST FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY AND INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION BY EMPLOYEE ASSISTANT REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT)

,

FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE.

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined Family Court’s many mistakes, which have resulted in mother’s inability to visit with her children for years, required a new hearing in front of a different judge. The Third Department had reversed the termination of mother’s parental rights in 2013. Family Court, however, refused to reinstate her parental rights and mother has been fighting to be allowed supervised visitation ever since:

… [W]e must address Family Court’s flawed understanding of the legal effect of our October 2013 order reversing the orders that terminated the mother’s parental rights to the children. Inexplicably, Family Court incorrectly and repeatedly stated on the record that there was no declaration by this Court that the mother’s parental rights or any prior orders were reinstated and that the mother was mistaken that her parental rights had been restored.

It is fundamental that the reversal of an order upon appellate review restores the party who prevailed on appeal to the position that he or she enjoyed prior to entry of the order appealed from … . Contrary to Family Court’s statements, this Court’s October 2013 order did reinstate the mother’s parental rights and restored her to the position that she was in prior to the erroneous termination of her parental rights. It appears from the record that, at such time, the mother had been afforded supervised visitation with the children once a week. Accordingly, upon the reinstatement of her parental rights, the mother was, at a minimum, entitled to the restoration of the visitation that she was afforded prior to the termination, unless it could be demonstrated by respondent that there were “‘compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental or harmful to the child[ren]’s welfare'” … . Matter of Angela F. v St. Lawrence County Dept. of Social Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 00513, 3rd Dept 1-26-17

See also the related case: Matter of Angela F. v Gail WW., 2017 NY Slip Op 00514, 3rd Dept 1-25-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE)/JUDGES (FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE)/APPEALS (FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE)

FLAWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF SMUGGLING CHARGES.

The Third Department determined problems with the recording of a conversation and other evidentiary failures required annulment of the smuggling charges:

The tape-recorded conversation that was read into the record during the hearing is replete with inaudible portions rendering it impossible to ascertain if, in fact, petitioner was a participant in the smuggling plan … . Moreover, the investigator who authored the misbehavior report did not identify the coded language allegedly used during the telephone conversation that led him to believe that petitioner was involved in such a plan … . The confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera — which only calls the accuracy of the conversation read into the record at the hearing into further doubt — does not remedy these deficiencies. Thus, the determination must be partially annulled. Matter of McGriff v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 00530, 3rd Dept 1-26-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (FLAWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF SMUGGLING CHARGES)

FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.

The Third Department determined the hearing officer’s failure to inquire into a witness’s reasons for refusing to testify required a new hearing:

Where, as here, an inmate initially agrees to testify and later refuses, “[i]t [is] incumbent upon the Hearing Officer . . . to conduct a personal inquiry unless a genuine reason for the refusal is apparent from the record and the Hearing Officer ma[kes] a sufficient inquiry into the facts surrounding the refusal to ascertain its authenticity” … . Significantly, “an inmate’s refusal that is based upon a desire not to be involved is not adequate to excuse a personal inquiry by the Hearing Officer” … . The Hearing Officer failed to conduct the requisite personal inquiry here, notwithstanding his offer to do so. Inasmuch as the inmate’s testimony was potentially relevant to charges for which petitioner was found guilty … , we find that petitioner was denied his regulatory right to call witnesses and that the matter must be remitted for a new hearing … . Matter of Banks v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 00529, 3rd Dept 1-26-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING)

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

The Third Department determined that, although claimant was injured in Florida, significant contacts with New York established subject matter jurisdiction:

“For the Board to have jurisdiction over a claim arising from a work-related injury that occurred outside New York, it must determine whether there were sufficient and significant contacts between the state and the employer to support a reasonable conclusion that the employment was to some extent sited in this state” … . To make this determination, the Board may consider various factors, including where the employee resides, where the employee was hired, the location of the employee’s employment and the employer’s offices, whether the employee was expected to return to New York after completing out-of-state work for the employer and the extent to which the employer conducted business in New York … . Upon due consideration of these relevant factors, if “it appears that the claimant’s employment had sufficient significant contacts with New York such that it may reasonably be concluded that the employment was located here, then subject matter jurisdiction exists” … .  While there is no dispute that claimant sustained her injuries while working in Florida, the record also establishes that claimant has maintained her primary and permanent residence in New York since 1983. Claimant testified that, in 2006, she was interviewed and hired at her employer’s residence located in New York and that her job duties included maintaining, and cooking for, that residence. Although claimant traveled with, and worked for, her employer in Florida for approximately eight months out of the year, claimant lived at her employer’s residence in New York for the balance of the year for five days a week while performing her job responsibilities. In addition, claimant testified that, throughout her employment, she considered New York her home. Matter of Barnett v Callaway, 2017 NY Slip Op 00366, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION)/JURISDICTION, SUBJECT MATTER (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION)

BIOMETRIC SCREENER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY.

The Third Department determined claimant, a biometric screener, was an employee of Summit, a company which provides health screenings and flu immunizations at clients’ workplaces:

The record reflects that Summit posted job openings for biometric screeners on its website, interviewed applicants and screened their experience and license credentials. Summit scheduled the clinics with its clients and the clients determined what services were needed. Summit then posted the clinic dates, and screeners could sign up to work at the clinics based upon their availability. If the screeners could not report to work after signing up for a clinic, they notified Summit, which would then find a replacement. Screeners were paid an hourly rate by Summit and were reimbursed for certain travel and other expenses. Summit provided equipment and supplies for the clinics and claimant was required to abide by a dress code and wear a Summit identification badge. In sum, we conclude that the facts in this case are materially indistinguishable from two prior cases in which we concluded that Summit was the employer of its certified medical assistants … . Matter of Williams (Summit Health, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 00363, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BIOMETRIC SCREENER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY)/BIOMETRIC SCREENER (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BIOMETRIC SCREENER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS COMPANY

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