CompFox AI Summary
In 1979, the claimant's husband, Ralph Goodman, died during employment, leading to the claimant being awarded death benefits by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer, Pollio Dairy Products, and its insurance carrier objected, arguing for an offset of Social Security survivors’ benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (1-c). Although initially deemed ineligible, the claimant began receiving Social Security benefits in 1982, prompting the carrier to request a reopening of the case for the offset. The Board ultimately denied the carrier's request, ruling that an offset only applies if benefits are received at the time of the original award, not subsequently. The employer and carrier appealed, but the Board's decision was affirmed, with the court finding its interpretation of the ambiguous statute rational and reasonable.
Claim of Goodman v. Pollio Dairy Products 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
In 1979, the claimant's husband, Ralph Goodman, died during employment, leading to the claimant being awarded death benefits by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer, Pollio Dairy Products, and its insurance carrier objected, arguing for an offset of Social Security survivors’ benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (1-c). Although initially deemed ineligible, the claimant began receiving Social Security benefits in 1982, prompting the carrier to request a reopening of the case for the offset. The Board ultimately denied the carrier's request, ruling that an offset only applies if benefits are received at the time of the original award, not subsequently. The employer and carrier appealed, but the Board's decision was affirmed, with the court finding its interpretation of the ambiguous statute rational and reasonable.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.