Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Concurrently, the motion for poor person relief was dismissed as academic.
A motion for leave to appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the order being appealed does not constitute a final determination of the proceeding as defined by the Constitution. Additionally, a motion for poor person relief was dismissed as it has become academic due to the dismissal of the primary motion.
The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee's decision disqualifying him from unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. The core dispute involved the claimant's authorized return date after a leave, complicated by communication through an interpreter, Julio Garcia. The employer's representative, Joseph Lacullo, testified without personal knowledge, relying on hearsay. The court ruled that the claimant was denied a fair hearing because Garcia, the only person with direct knowledge of the leave authorization, was not compelled to testify despite the claimant's request. As a result, the record lacked probative and substantial evidence to support the finding of unauthorized absence. The decision was reversed, and the case remitted for further proceedings consistent with due process.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
This document outlines the disposition of a multi-part motion. The request for leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order dated October 18, 1979, was denied. Separately, the motion's attempt to appeal from Appellate Division orders dated January 8, 1980, and February 28, 1980, was dismissed, as these orders were deemed not to constitute a final determination of the proceeding under the Constitution. Furthermore, the accompanying request to prosecute the appeal as a poor person was dismissed as academic.
In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.
The claimant, a guard at a state-run psychiatric center, suffered a work-related injury and received workers’ compensation benefits. During his disability, he used personal leave time for which he received full wages. The employer sought reimbursement for these advance payments, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement for the personal leave portion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, differentiating personal leave from sick leave by noting that personal leave could not be accrued or converted, thus not conferring a permanent benefit to the employer or a detriment to the claimant. The court concluded that denying reimbursement would result in the claimant receiving both full wages and compensation for the same period, a disfavored outcome, and therefore, reimbursement should be granted.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not
In this appeal, the defendants, Dr. Oberman and the New York City Transit Authority, challenged a resettled order that, despite granting them summary judgment, allowed the plaintiffs leave to replead an intentional tort claim. The plaintiff, Adrienne Nash, had alleged personal injuries including a miscarriage due to medical malpractice and negligence by Dr. Oberman, a coemployee, for whom the Transit Authority was vicariously liable. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, affirming that Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) is the exclusive remedy for such claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations amounted to, at most, gross negligence or reckless conduct, which is insufficient to circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity for intentional torts. Consequently, the plaintiffs were denied leave to replead an intentional tort cause of action.
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.