CompFox AI Summary
The claimant, a traffic enforcement officer, sustained work-related injuries in 1992 and received workers’ compensation benefits until 2002. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by continuing to receive benefits after returning to work, leading to disqualification from further wage replacement benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claimant’s initial application for review as untimely filed, and subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The court affirmed the Board's denial, concluding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, as the claimant failed to present newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or demonstrate the Board improperly overlooked issues.
Claim of Amaker v. City of New York Department of Transportation is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The claimant, a traffic enforcement officer, sustained work-related injuries in 1992 and received workers’ compensation benefits until 2002. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by continuing to receive benefits after returning to work, leading to disqualification from further wage replacement benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claimant’s initial application for review as untimely filed, and subsequently denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The court affirmed the Board's denial, concluding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, as the claimant failed to present newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or demonstrate the Board improperly overlooked issues.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.