II. State Education Department
The indictments had been expected on Wednesday and the delay prompted procedural maneuvering from the DA's office and protests from the defense. State of the State In a 90 minute State of the State address on Wednesday, Andrew Cuomo laid out his plans for what is shaping up to be a very difficult financial year for the state. The Department was required to report to the Legislature on the impact of compensatory education programs. The board has slowly become more diverse in its composition. In Commissioner James E. Be a member and profit.
Search Google Appliance
I got a year free Toyota Roadside Assistance with my new cars 2x. That was the biggest turnoff. Forgot to mention, the tire inflater is also a battery jumper! I can even use this device as a flashlight and an AC outlet anywhere I want to take it like when I go camping.
AC in the tent is nice. Try and get AAA to do that or to inflate your tire instantly. I called a month ago the AAA for my husband car, the battery was death, was around 6: My husband went with my car in the store and bought a new battery. Our AAA will expire in Jan and I sent an email for cancel it, they wrote me back that we were selected for an automatic payment credit card and for this we could have any refund, and we could cancel until Jan.
Today they called me and they asked me if I want to vancel mine , and have a reimbursment, but only me not my husband. AAA saved me several times. Re customer support, there is always a chance that you may not come across to the right person. If you are not happy dial back to talk to someone else a supervisor without getting angry.
Had a new car, the alternator broke down in the nearly middle of nowhere where I would most liekly be screwed by a mechanic. They towed me miles from east PA to State College for free. Same car stalled 2 times later same day, they towed again without asking to the dealer. Again, it really depends on the circumstances. If you do have any other roadside service at that price — that is great, if not why take a risk to get stuck some place and pay real big bucks to the cost of dinner.
Cars are an important part of our lives so better be on the safe side instead of penny pinching. And we use it when my husband locks his keys in the car which, thankfully, is less often than it used to be! I have a newer Honda and would have never expected a transmission malfunction that left me stranded last year. The big yellow AAA truck towed my car to the shop and dropped me off at my office 3 miles away.
And just a couple of months ago, my teenage daughter managed to lock the keys and the alarm transmitter in the car. We were in a little town in the middle of nowhere and AAA saved the day. AAA Is worth every penny. I work at a high line car dealership and I see new cars come in on the hook all the time! I drive older cars and so does my wife.
How much money are you saving if you have to take off work to go fix your families blown out or flat tire?? Peice of mind is priceless! My wife has AAA and has for years since her Dad originally got it for her as a gift. She used it for a tire blowout tow last year. I used it for a thought-I-could-change-my-timing-belt-myself tow. We even got our housekeepers car unlocked with a locksmith from AAA.
I use all sorts of coupon codes when buying online, not just the AAA discount. But for example, renting a car at Hertz I got to use multiple discount codes AAA and my corporate code. I was a AAA member for over 20 years but cancelled it a couple years ago when I got my car insurance through Costco Ameriprise as they offer road side assistance.
I thought I would be fine with this but last month when my car broke down I found out that the Ameriprise road side assistance charges if you need a tow over a certain of miles 7, I believe. I live in Southern California so a 7 mile tow is a joke. Plus I was told it would be over 2 hours before they got to me. A friend used his AAA card for me and I was helped out of this situation in less than 30 minutes. Later I called AAA and tried to renew to the Premier status I previously held and was told I could only be a basic member and perhaps after one year I could upgrade.
Had not been carrying the roadside from cellphone company or Insurance agencies. December , had popped two passenger tires on same vehicle in Central IL during a snow storm on a grated pothole. Keep in mind it was middle of snowstorm so EVERY tow driver was busy clearing highways and mainways…and the truck that arrived 15min after my initial call was not equipped to handle my car…it was a 1 axle tow.
I know this is an old thread; however, in TX there is a 7 day waiting period on an activated membership for towing service. I enjoyed this thread, thanks for posting.
I went online in consideration for a AAA membership or alternatives. At the end of the day I went with the membership. An added plus was when I called the local office instead of purchasing online they gave me a special 2 for 1 and waived my initial membership fee. So, not only do I have peace of mind for an upcoming trip, I also have a bonus membership for my college student as well. Time will tell if it was a wise decision. I had a car that had a vapor-lock type of problem.
Yeah, open your wallet. The biggest thing of all, particularly for those of us that live paycheck to paycheck — you might have had the money for membership back at say the first of the year, but not the money now. Not for 2 tows, not for 3 tows, or more. You say you have never had a major breakdown, so for that fact alone you have no experience at it to rag on it.
The response is slow, but it was already paid for, which is some good news to the guy with little money at the time. Before re-newing AAA you might want to check for discounts on membership and membership renewal. It looks like many regions have quite a bit differences in rules so the original post was definitely YMMV.
Thanks for chiming in on such an old post though ;. I worked for AAA for several years, and had much interaction with execs from other clubs throughout the country, as well as the national office.
There are literally over a hundred clubs of different sizes, some as small as a single county or two, some as large as half-a-dozen states. Some lose money on the towing, and make it up in other areas. Not in travel, as these packages are mostly arranged by AAA National or large independent vacation packagers, and there is not a lot of profit margin there. Some clubs sub-contract auto-repairs to independent garages, some own and operate a string of sophisticated auto-repair facilities.
Some are very heavy into insurance, not only auto, but life and home property, casualty as well. Some not at all. The amount of value you receive as a AAA member depends on your lifestyle and what type of consumer you are. You probably belong to airline and hotel affinity programs and are racking up miles and free nights.
Towing — This you can get at comparable prices from other sources, as noted. Obviously, this only applies if you or your family members are driving a car out-of-warranty. Keep in mind that cars manufactured in the last decade are much more reliable. If your club does not own and operate the towing operation, then know that you could have the same truck picking you up as an Allstate Motor Club member.
This is old-fashioned, but some people like to talk to a real person before plunking down a couple of thousand bucks. AAA has an exclusive discount with Disney that is hard to beat. The rest of the travel packages can be bested by just checking around on the internet. The AAA rate in most cases is higher than what you would get from the airline or hotel chain directly. In some cases, the AAA travel agent might be pushing it. Keep in mind that AAA will never sell you a package involving a property that has not been rated by them.
This is something the property has to pay for. Generally, this is good, because their rating system takes into account the things that are important. In the vast majority of cases, AAA is an insurance broker. So they are a middleman. Again, you can get a better deal by negotiating and comparing, and getting dealers to compete with each other. My own personal experience with this service was unsatisfactory.
The first time, no one ever got back to me after I sent a request for a quote via the AAA website. The second time, I did get a call back, and spent 30 minutes describing the vehicle I wanted. I answered questions on color choices, etc.
In general, AAA tries very hard to provide excellent service to their members. AAA has been around for more than years. They do good work on the national level campaigning for driving safety, better maintenance of roads and highways, reporting on gas prices and advocating for drivers on the local, regional and national levels.
But you get all that without being a member. In major cities, they are often siding against mass transit, usually because this means less funds for maintenance of highway, road, bridge and tunnel infrastructure. Whether or not you get the value out of your membership depends on what and how much you buy from them. If you just renew your membership, and never call for towing service, you are a profitable member for them, and you get the peace of mind knowing a century-old service organization is behind you.
Most AAA websites are behind the curve, content-wise. But some clubs have cutting edge tracking systems on their websites however, that monitor your visits and send you solicitations based on your browsing. There is zero effort in that regard. There is no real active marketing to younger drivers, except through their parents. All of the above is based on my composite experience and dialog with the national office and execs at all the major clubs across the country.
Two hours later, after calling several times, they then say he is 5 minutes away. Fifty minutes later, at 6: So, AAA lied to me about the tow. What is the Premier Membership worth? Nothing, as far as I am concerned. They never called me to tell me updates on the time or give me any courtesy. Oh, and one more thing. Yesterday it was warm, clear, no bad weather.
The price I pay for modifying my car, I guess. Not everyone has a super reliable car, or does routine maintenance. So maybe AAA is a nice thing to have for those people.
They honored the membership. I also was told by the operator, to tell them that I am a nurse on the way to work if I should have a breakdown at home again…they come out faster, otherwise the call could take hours for anyone to show up. I do love the peace of mind, but the newer memberships have lots of restrictions, that the older ones did not…so maybe it is time to re-eval…great article.
Tow truck got to me in about 30 minutes and took my car to the dealership I requested. Second time she ran out of gasoline and AAA brought her some. Worth the price of membership? Discounts at hotels, restaurants, shopping, etc.
For us, the two things that make it worth having membership are: Well I totally disagree with you, you can not find the same discounts online and when you do there is always a catch. Also everything you book like hotels are AAA rated and backed.
They also offer full service travel agents and offer the best Disney discouts around. So I think what you are saying is total garbage and I hope not to many people listen. The membership is a small price to pay for piece of mind.
Luckily we walked to a ranger station that let us use the phone. The driver took us back to Fairbanks, so a approximate 10 hr trip for him, all covered by our AAA Plus.
Plus, the new tires. We are a military family and travel all over the country. Plus my husband gets deployed or travels far away constantly.
AAA has come to my rescue many times, with tows, getting the dog unlocked from the car, and providing us with maps and travel books in the pre-smart phone and internet days. Even now we like the paper maps and books, because we have many unplanned trips and moves. And saving on other things is the icing on the cake for us. We used to have AAA and let it lapse.
The one nice thing about AAA, or other road side service, is that you can pick up your cell phone and have a tow truck on the way. What shit is that. I had them come and do a diagnostic on my vehicle when I was stranded and they gave me a ride home as well.
There is a peace of mind that comes with the AAA membership and I would not want to live without that. It can obviously be a nice service. However, it all boils down to one thing: We are not getting the bigger end of the stick in this service. You may win sometimes. In fact, there is a chance that you could win big. In the end, though, most folks are leaving the casino with less money.
There are times when it seems AAA is the better deal. And if peace of mind is what you want, then like any other insurance company, AAA will do the trick. But over a ten year period, while you may use their services several times, most of the time you are paying for a large number of employees to perform services you will never use.
Again, over time, a AAA member will pay for two dispatchers whereas a non-member will pay for just one. AAA may have been the best for discounts before the rise of the internet. Not always, but most of the time.
They get the bigger end of the financial stick, otherwise, they would cease to exist. I just let mine lapse because it felt like a luxury I could no longer afford. I found out today that I am no longer eligible for my homeowners insurance!
AAA does have some nice services that can be used by having a regular membership. No thanks, too expensive. Loyalty and clean records dont count much with these folks. I worked there for over 11 years and they say they get service to u in 30 min usually. It takes 10 min to even get thru there phone prompts. The company is the worst to work for too. Employees have to abuse fmla just so they dont loose their job. They offer you incentive to have a friend work there, yeah it will end up you loose that friend cause of the abuse you get working there.
You never know one day to the next if you have a job or not. If you try to help a member,you will get in trouble for saying something. You know of a promotion to save them money,,,ha ha, if they dont know the code, you cant tell them, now how is that helping. AAA you suck , insurance is way over priced. I too had had AAA for 20 years as my very first part time job was as a courier for a bank, and I had to drive on the highway quite a bit.
After having this for 15 years or more I finally had to use it. I had a flat tire while on a trip with my family. I waited 2 hours for someone to get there to fix my tire. I finally called back and was told that they had no record of my call. Finally after another hour someone finally got there, but they were unalbe to get the tire off! They pumped it up enough for me to drive it to a mechanic—which was hard since it was on a Saturday in Pigeon Forge TN and after the 3 hours of wiaiting most all true service stations were closed—who got the tire off easily and repaired it.
That was the first and only experience with AAA and it was not very good. I let my service expire this year and added towing to my insurance policy. My daughter locked BOTH sets of her keys in her trunk on the upper east side of manhattan minutes before embarking on a trip to a wedding in Vermont that she was driving three guests to. AAA sent me a formal, notary sealed letter for me to send to the NYC parking authority for dismissal of the ticket. I would never give them another penny! Run from them, auto drivers and homeowners!
This is a terrible article. I use all of the discount sites offered, but you can still typically do better with AAA. And the Disney tickets are much less expensive. And I use roadside assistance ALL the time. At least twice a year, if not, much more.
Their trip-tik concept is outdated with the advent of Google maps and GPS devices. The hotel discounts mean nothing, as I can find rooms cheaper via booking websites. So, nope, AAA is not worth it. If you live in So Cal. I went to AAA last week and it took less than 10 mins to renew my registration vs going to the DMV waiting 45 mins to an hour. I made several calls to AAA today to try to find out why I should have had to pay this additional charge and was shuffled back and forth and became quite frustrated.
In the end my home office mid-atlantic spoke to the Tidewater office and said Tidewater customer relations did agree finally to refund my money. AAA now has a same day service policy which requires that those who renew just to receive service will be required to pay a same day service fee along with the membership dues. Primarily now, I get AAA discounts on hotels. Even if you use AAA just for one towing you get your money back, not mentioning th ehotel discounts.
I did not renew my membership. I received a call from an AAA rep. She ask to me I told her. She go really nasty on the phone and I hung up on her. I see people are still commenting on your post. The value of these points and promotions generally runs from 12 to 25 percent of the hotel cost, so missing out on them really hurts.
Plus, not getting status and thus losing out on free upgrades to suites and not getting access to free breakfasts and to the executive lounges would be a bummer. If you book directly with the hotel and take the AAA discount, you get the points and status.
You also get crazy discounts just about anywhere. And if that is your mindset, and you bag on AAA, you are flat out retarded…period. Also forgot to mention, unless you are a senior citizen AARP , where else are you going to get the combined buying power of 45 million members? AAA is the white stag for every retailer and manufacturer in this country.
Be a member and profit. Be a doubter and pay more. AAA basic covers 3 mile towing — pretty useless. So I bought the basic membership. Just made two Great decisions today! It to but AARP, because of a great website that told all the reasons not to! Well good for you that you have a super nice car that never breaks down. When it broke down last week, I paid nothing, other than my 60 dollar per year membership fee.
I now have the roadside assistance package from Geico, which is limitless and fast and easy and cost only a few extra dollars a year. AAA was a nightmare. First of all, AAA is divided into national sections; each area of the country operates under different rules. The differences may be found in their details, but they are often details defining the parameter of the roadside service.
I learned the hard way that this is why it may often take AAA forever to arrive at a scene for service. On top of that, there are limitation for how many tows per year your membership provides, how far you may be towed after which you pay — a lot. This also affects how many of the other roadside assistance options your membership entitles you to. The operators you call when in trouble have been, for me, not very nice.
Seems to me that AAA must have been a good deal at one time. Today it appears to be a gimmick designed to exact extra charges whenever possible. People working for AAA are never very friendly over the phone, which leads me to believe they are constantly responding to angry member and, as employees, are treated by the company with the same contempt they treat members over the phone.
As far as travel service is concerned, AAA travel agents want to book you with companies that they have agreements with, which are not always the most economic choices. Usually, with a little effort, one may find better deals on the internet or with travel agencies that have nothing to do with AAA. Why deal with AAA when there are better deals for everyone of their supposed services out there? One time I was stuck in Nevada on the way to Reno in the middle of nowhere and late at night.
The tow truck companies have contracts and they have to abide by them. I have my membership since 3yrs ago,did not use much of their service though. Recently got disappointed with the battery service. Had a bad battery so I bought my battery from the towing service ,Hollywood Towing.
After less than a month, the battery dont charge, I keep on complaing and they came to service many times. When I get the paper frm Autozone, it says good but Autozone explained that its really a BAD battery,the paper says good coz it charge but after taking it off,it discharges. They dont accept the reasoning. NEVER buy battery from them, this is the advice i got from, friends,mechanic,relatives..
They also experienced the same thing with them. I got AAA for my son several years ago when het went to college…about 60 miles from home. He only used it a few times.
I then got it for my daughter when she went to college. I got the plus because she had to get a tow as well, and she was slightly more than 60 miles. Unfortunately, this year they both used it at least 4 times each. I, in fact, just joined under the same plan because I needed a tow as well…only 8 miles. I thought we got miles free towing per year!!! I will now have to find something else. This is so annoying. This is so ridiculous. They tow members cars up to miles and the BEST part is.. I researched and called them and liked what I found.
I have since used them for a battery jump TWICE and they were spectacular, so I recommended them to a few friends and just like they promised, the money was immediately sent to me that following Friday! The basic plan which to my knowledge is where everyone new starts, you cannot just sign up for Premier……or maybe you can now but not back then.
When I left Seattle for back east AAA told me everything would be fine, just call the local office back east and change over the membership. Now back east, they wanted me to start from scratch again to which their corporate in Florida gave no help what-so-ever toward maintaining my premier status I had earned. Towing was 3 miles or the nearest service station while premier at that time was miles……now miles! It is getting batter by leaps and bounds! In all the years I have had AAA, other than the moving incident, they have been top shelf!
I have had my vehicles towed at least a half dozen times throughout the year and a couple battery jumps with total reliability! They only give a discount to the second member on the plan. Plus without the premium plan, I believe you have to pay for towing after five miles. I have gotten a rental the past two just for someone slicing my tires because it had to be towed and I needed a car.
For the any Wal-mart customer there are two simple ways to get help, one is contact to officials by customer support phone number, or visit online services help using how to walmart.
Here all the articles are best written by experts. Ridiculous article…AAA is totally worth it. If you lock your keys in your car once every two years, it pays itself off. Y not have two different membership cards. I hope my point of view helps many of you.
In the past, no problems if our car broke down on the road, got stuck in the mud in North Carolina or stuck in the snow in our driveway. A rechnician came within an hour and would resolve the issue.
Today our car was stuck in our driveway, unable to move due to the foot of snow and ice recently fallen in our are…not a problem in the past as a tow truck driver would extricate you from the snow. Meet the new loophole the roadside emergency companies use NOT to perform the services you thought you paid. When I mentioned to the agent, this was permitted in.
I reminded the agent that I could have reported the car was non -functioning, gotten a free tow to a neatby repair shop and, aftet the tow driver had left, driven the car back to the end of the driveway where I wanted it towed in the first place!
How many tow trucks even bother to attempt to start the car anyway? What am I getting for my money? Most new vehicles today come with a Roadside Assistance plan. Another thing to consider, if you are planning to purchase a AAA membership: The temp card indicates Southern New England. If you use Verizon, you owe it to yourself to look into a AAA membership. Motor club of America is better than AAA. You get unlimited roadside assistance plus discounts and hospital benefits.. Oh yeah and theres more… LOTS more.
It is a shame — shame on you, AAA. I have AAA membership. I had a car that was literally undrivable the tires were ready to fall off because of the rust. I had a tow to pick up the car from the repair shop to get it back to my home.
First they wanted the licenses on the car but I told them it was going to be transferred to the new car the next day. I had an emergency my car needed to be told 22 miles not 3 miles. AAA told me that I have to wait for seven days in order to get that service.
AAA policy; Fifty year members,Free membership. If you can provide further information a lot of us would be interested. Just tried to have AAA stop mailing my mother renewal notices. She died 8 months ago and her credit cards were closed shortly thereafter. I was told on the phone that just to remove her name from the mailing list and have them stop trying to bill her card, I had to provide a Power of Attorney. Stupidest thing I ever heard.
First off, POAs expire at the death of the person so it would be invalid. For me it would probably be good for my situation. I work 30 miles from home and drive an older car. I get the feeling the writer of the article is financially better off than me. There is a 30 day waiting period for an elapsed renewal. On the other hand this may be fraud if you are only actually getting 11 months of real service!
Not sure if they push the renewal date a month forward the next time but it is someting to watch. I find better rates for Insurance outside of AAA. They lured me in with a teaser rate then proceeded to jack it up every 6 months through Travellers. I have a perfect driving record and great credit. One thing to remember with AAA- it covers the person and any vehicle he is travelling at the time.
It does not have to be yours. My wife was stranded in a rural Tennessee town when our pickup would not start. Their tow truck was available.
AAA reimbursed me for it. To say the least, we were not happy with them. But we are still members. That should tell you the level of competence of their drivers. Waited for over 2. Never received a call from the driver. When I called to cancel the assistance, they said it was already cancelled. Will not renew membership.
I was adding auto club benefits benefits similar to AAA to my auto insurance policy. I began asking the agent questions comparing it to AAA. Insurance company benefits only include coverage for MY car with me at the scene when services are needed.
Then I asked if I used the service would it count against me as a claim and cause my premium to increase. Once the agent affirmed that my premium would increase for any use of the auto club benefits, I had him to stop adding this to my policy. He completely understood my decision. When my daughter began driving I bought AAA membership for my peace of mind. Called AAA and was told I had used all my tows for the year. They still sent a truck out to get me and towed me all the way into Vegas!
Things may have changed, but I am still a member because of that…. Free replacement if you go to a AAA service center where them run a battery test before replacement it a stall tactic to twist your arm to buy another battery from them.
Remember to pay attention. My wife upgraded to the plus plan which includes 4 free mile tows. Crazy she did that after we have only had the basic roadside coverage for years. Then later in the year I was involved in a rear end accident — my fault — and my car was totalled. I was more than the basic coverage of 10 miles from my house. They towed my totalled car to my house then a few days later I sold the car to a guy interested in parts more than 25 miles away.
They came and towed the car to his house. You never know about these things happening until they do. We will never give up our coverage…A small price to pay for additional peace of mind. I have been in a fight with the San Diego Mission Valley office. I came in Feb of this year to turn in my paperwork on the car I just bought. I bought on sunday so no verification could be done for my insurance. Monday was a holiday so I went Tuesday to turn things in.
Five months later the gap insurance is suing me over a prime I owe them. I call the office I went to, the receptionist was rude then would not give me corporate phone number.
All around Ass holes to me. It gets,worse they still have not fixed nor given an apology. The clerk who cause this hadno action taken against her or their office.
As far as them taking care of there customers. They score the lowest. If considering them shop around. I got with them based on others say they are a good company. To many other companies offer better. Shop around and ask what are your company polices if I have a problem. I have Ben with them 4 years and there are limits on services you never hear about till you user their services too much. This company needs to be sued by a class action lawsuit. When they got to big and the customers started to suffer the Supreme Court made the break down their companies.
Still waiting for them to fix this. Their screw up landed on my credit report. Nothing is being done nor do think it will be fixed.
I hate companies who behave this way. They get a pension when they retire!! Loss of benefits over the years. First they dropped the towing distance ? Then introduced Plus membership. They ended their very useful Vehicle Inspection Service. I live in NC. We let our AAA membership expire accidently. When I needed a tow I called them. They told me my membership had expired and I renewed it on the phone right then.
Tow truck showed up 15 minutes later. AAA has all the reputable tow companies on board, and that leaves all the fly by nights to work for the rest. If you ever need a tow, AAA will beat the pants off the also-rans. If you want reliable, professional service AAA is the only game in town. Our vehicle broke down,we knew the radiator was empty. Were told they could not bring that because it was not safe.
They offered gas or a jump. Maybe the AAA employee that answered the phone was less than smart. I am not impressed. And the cost for a first timer is cheaper than a renewal???? One phone call gets me the same guy that everyone in my neighborhood gets. Time to renew policy. Went up dollars because we drpped a third car.
We get ripped off here in michigan. AAA is great for roadside assistance, especially if you can cut out the expense from other auto insurance. It is more reasonably priced and offers more. In an opinion that could well be used in discussing future earnings capability of someone who may return to their home country or even an American considering a move outside the U.
Nor can we say, in the instant case, that the trial court erred in refusing to permit cross-examination of plaintiff about his immigration status and prior desire to return to Ecuador.
Any argument, by defendant, that plaintiff was subject to deportation to Ecuador or had expressed an interest, prior to the accident, in someday returning to Ecuador, in an effort to suggest that plaintiff would incur lower medical expenses in Ecuador than in the United States, would also have been inappropriate.
The Following 16 cases await the Court's ruling. Motion for leave to appeal denied. This case was ernver heard before the 3rd Department. It is interesting to note that the first motion to be heard before the 3rd Department, October 9, , was accepted with the caveat that it explain why that motion was filed late. The next five motions to the 3rd were denied, including one denying permission to go to the Court of Appeals which itself, on three occasions, denied a motion to hear the case, December 17, being the last.
Motion for leave to appeal by claimant of an April 16, decision by this Court denied. A previous motion was denied by this same Court September 10, Motion for leave to appeal the Courts August 20, dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Claimant has unsuccessfully appealed denial of a Full Board Review. Appeal Dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Order of ; Affirmance; Leave to appeal granted by Court of appeals, ; Workers' Compensation - Special Funds - where the workers' compensation insurance carrier approves the settlement of a third-party personal injury action without first obtaining the consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee SFCC to such settlement, and the SFCC thereafter denies retroactive consent for the settlement, does the Court in which the underlying personal injury action was commenced have the power to compel the SFCC to consent to the settlement nunc pro tunc, or must the carrier seek such relief from the Workers' Compensation Board.
Claimant, who resides in Brooklyn, was injured in the course of his employment as a correction officer in Queens. Although this is the fifth ruling against Rella by the Court in two years on this same issue, the points raised by Rella in this case are different from those in his prior cases. Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. The Board rejected this assertion finding that there was no reason to anticipate that claimant would be required to attend future hearings in those pending cases, as they were nearing completion.
The Law Judge, in denying the venue request, noted that, prior to this application, Rella had been advised in a similar matter that venue was not established for the convenience of the attorney. On claimant's application for review, the Board affirmed, with one Board member dissenting.
Rella's venue request was based upon entirely unsupported assertions that failed to justify a change of venue either outside of claimant's residential district or the district where his public employer is located. We further find that the Board acted within its discretion in declining to consider the newly proffered justification for the venue request, which Rella advanced for the first time in the application for Board review see 12 NYCRR As substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that, prior to this venue change request, Rella had been advised in another matter involving " virtually identical circumstances " regarding the rules governing venue and that Rella had no reasonable basis for either the motion to change venue or the appeal to the Board, we decline to disturb the Board's assessment of separate penalties for the venue request and the appeal to the Board.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had this venue request been made by an attorney other than Rella, as some of the points Rella raised were not in his prior requests. Claimant, whose duties at Bimbo Bakeries included, among other things, loading a flour sifter machine, submitted a claim in November after experiencing pain in his right wrist and being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, flexor tendonitis, and ulnar impaction syndrome.
A Law Judge 1 credited the testimony of claimant's supervisor in determining that claimant's job duties did not entail sufficient repetitive action for an occupational disease and 2 did not credit the opinions of claimant's physicians regarding causation, since both physicians failed to establish an adequate understanding of claimant's work activities or obtain a complete medical history.
Here, the Court wrote: The Board's decision regarding the presence and classification of a medical condition — i. Here, the Board credited the testimony of claimant's supervisor regarding claimant's job duties in determining that claimant failed to sufficiently prove "a specific repetitive movement suggesting a link between a distinctive feature of [his] job and [his] injuries ". Further, since claimant's physicians failed to show adequate knowledge of his work activities or medical history, " '[t]he Board was free to reject this less-than-compelling medical evidence, ' and its finding that claimant did not submit credible medical evidence of a causally related occupational disease is supported by substantial evidence".
The Following nine cases await the Court's ruling. In February , claimant successfully filed a request for further action seeking authorization for right knee replacement surgery. Liability for a claim shifts to the Special Fund " when an application for compensation is made by an employee. The Special Fund's "liability [was] triggered, as a matter of law, upon the passage of time as provided by the statute.
To hold otherwise would be contrary to the purpose of the statute, which "i s to shift the liability for paying stale claims to the [Special] Fund. As the result of a July 30, work-related auto accident, workers comp benefits were paid to the claimant by the carrier New Hampshire Insurance Co. In June , the petitioner successfully sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
When the plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained while participating in the "Enrollment in Work Experience" program, Erie County unsuccessfully sought to have the complaint dismissed on the ground that workers' compensation benefits are plaintiff's exclusive remedy. The Appellate Court found: Thus, the Court "should not have entertained [defendant's] motion at this juncture, and the case should have been referred to the Board for a determination" whether plaintiff has a valid cause of action for damages or whether he is limited to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law.
When the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was medically fit to return to work, with or without accommodation, the City served the petitioner with a notice of termination dated July 15, As the result of a cervical injury, the claimant, a certified nurse's assistant, was awarded workers' compensation benefits for a specified period of time.
When she subsequently sought additional causally-related lost earnings, the Board found that claimant sustained a temporary total disability from October onward. But it rejected her claim for further benefits, finding that she was not attached to the labor market from May to October , and that she would accordingly need to establish her reattachment to the labor market in order to be entitled to further awards. At a March , the Board found that she had reattached to the labor market as of January Claimant testified that, when she sought employment within her medical restrictions, she was told that no positions were available to accommodate her disability.
Also, the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities informed claimant that she would not benefit from its services given her medical limitations. Under these circumstances, the Court agreed that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant's efforts of actively searching for employment and her goal of remaining attached to the labor market were sufficient to demonstrate her reattachment to the labor market.
The Court reviewed the employer's contention that the Board erred in denying its requests for full Board review and found them to be unpersuasive. Prevailing Party represented by: As the result of several allergic reactions to the hand sanitizer used at the hospital, in she suffered from respiratory distress, resulting in her hospitalization. After claimant stopped working and applied for workers comp, her case was established for a work-related injury of reactive airway dysfunction syndrome and an allergy to the hand sanitizer.
Notably, the Court of Appeals has recognized that "where actual earnings during the period of the disability are established, wage-earning capacity must be determined exclusively by the actual earnings of the injured employee without evidence of capacity to earn more or less during such disability period. SIF, the employer's carrier, made the last payment of compensation in for a work-related injury and the case was closed. Jill Singer of counsel to the Special Funds respondent.
Although claimant suffered an injury in July , her lost work time did not exceed the waiting period, hence no application for lost wages was submitted and no finding was made as to permanency or any degree thereof. On June 12, , the employer was directed to produce payroll records and a C statement of wage earnings for purposes of calculating average weekly wages, and the issue of permanency was left unresolved.
But because the employer did not provide the C until May 17, , after claimant applied for further medical treatment, the Law Judge denied the employer's request to transfer liability, finding that the case was never truly closed, as there were directives for the carrier to produce payroll records and for both sides to submit permanency medical reports, and there was an outstanding issue of average weekly wages.
Upon review, the Board affirmed. Accordingly, the Court agreed that the Board's decision that the case was not truly closed was supported by substantial evidence. Alliance National Insurance and Travelers Indemnity. Claimant suffered two injuries to his left knee while employed as a lineman for a utility company filing claims for workers' comp for each.
The injury Travelers was established for injuries to both of knees, including a total bilateral knee replacement. In February , a Law Judge ruled that apportionment was applicable only to the increase in the SLU for claimant's left leg. Contrary to Alliance's claim, the Court found that the Board did not abuse its discretion when it fully considered Alliance's argument with respect to the manner in which the apportionment percentages should have been applied, but chose not to revisit this issue in light of the February decision.
No opinions were issued these weeks. Claimant, a major league baseball umpire, was awarded workers' comp due to a hip injury. Following complications and several surgeries for hip replacement, he was deemed permanently partially disabled.
Claimant commenced a third-party action alleging medical malpractice and products liability claims related to his initial hip replacement device. The Court agreed, finding found that a agreement was entered into with the claimant in connection with the carrier intervening in the third-party action seeking reimbursement of costs and a workers' comp lien.
Email the Insider with your comments and questions. Claimant sustained work related injuries in and a consequential injury in In , the carrier raised the issue of a possible non-work-related accident and injury.
Claimant testified at the initial hearing that she was enrolled in a part-time training position for only a month in and she was not certain whether she had informed the carrier of the position. She also testified that, although it was supposed to be a paid position, she was not paid due to her refusal to participate in the training program.
In July , claimant, found to have hypersensitivity reaction to the presence of fungi, had her claim established with a finding of temporary total disability. In , the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity and awards were continued. After a Law Judge classified claimant with a permanent total disability, the Board rescinded that finding, referring the matter to an impartial specialist to report on the claimant's disability classification rate.
The impartial specialist testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically-recognized condition and, in any event, it was his opinion that claimant was not suffering from any causally-related disability. Her January 11, letter seeking a hearing to determine degree of disability resulted in a hearing at which the Law Judge construed the Board's December 19, decision as rejecting his prior decision that claimant suffered a causally-related total disability but continued the case for further development of the record to determine clamant's appropriate, lesser degree of disability.
The employer appealed on the grounds that the Board, on December 12, , had precluded further development of the record as there was no causally-related disability.
This appeal was accepted by the Board in a January decision. The Court noted that on January 11, , claimant did file a notice of appeal with the Court as to the December 19, Board decision, but failed to timely perfect that appeal. Claimant received workers comp benefits for work-related injuries until when she returned to work. After her employment ended in April , she raised the issues of permanency and reduced wages.
A Law Judge awarded additional benefits from April 11, to October 29, , but found no further compensable lost time. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Board's denial of claimant's application was arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of its discretion. After claimant filed a claim for benefits stating that he had suffered a stroke while working, a Law Judge determined that there was a causal relationship between claimant's stroke and his employment and established the claim.
Prevailing Part y represented by: Claimant opposed, claiming that the appeal was untimely given that the November decision — not the January decision — was final with regard to the SLU.
The Court agreed with the Board that, because the Law Judge made the November decision without any explanation of how the As noted by the Board, a schedule award is not given for an injury, but for the residual physical and functional impairments. Although since claimant has had a neck condition requiring surgeries and intermittent treatment, he worked full time with restrictions until October , when he fell at work sustaining injuries to his back.
Thus, we agree with the Board that apportionment is not applicable here. In June , claimant suffered a work-related injury with benefits paid up to June 20, , when plaintiff returned to work. In April , claimant's physician requested authorization for an MRI which, on April 23, , showed a medial and lateral meniscal tear. On June 26, , the physician requested authorization to perform surgery, which was performed in late July The Court found that the Board incorrectly considered the case closed once the MRI application was approved in April and then was reopened June 26, when surgery was requested.
The Court wrote that in prior cases it recognized that " decision authorizing [an] MRI [does] not constitute a true closing of the case as [the] claimant's future treatment depended upon the results of the MRI and, thus, further action was contemplated although not planned at that time.
Accordingly, and despite the fact that the hearing transcript was destroyed, the matter must be remitted for further development of the record as to whether claimant ever received or was even entitled to disability payments subsequent to April 21, and to address the absence of a reduced earnings award in the decision at issue herein.
Schottenstein alleges that Silverman exceeded the scope of his assigned task by reporting that the medical records he reviewed indicated possible fraudulent billing and unnecessary treatment rendered, and recommending that the matter be referred to the Office of Professional Misconduct and the Attorney General's Office.
The Appellate Court ruled that: The complaint fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since defendant's report fails "to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized communit y.
On June 14, , the injured worker, a 56 year old male, was allegedly injured while in a tunnel 60 feet below ground, traveling in a type of train car when the train allegedly stopped violently and abruptly causing him to be thrown forward and backward. The injuries have resulted in pain, deformity, disability, stiffness, tenderness, tingling sensation, weakness and limitation and have further prevented the plaintiff from enjoying the normal fruits of his activities, including but not limited to social, economic, and educational.
The injured worker objected to some of these demands on the grounds that not all these providers treated him for any of the injuries that he sustained as a result of the accident, and that the demands were "irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. However, it is equally well-settled that "[t]he waiver of the physician-patient privilege made by a party who affirmatively asserts a physical condition in its pleading does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments.
The Court noted that when a plantiff asserts claims for loss of enjoyment of life or for lost future earnings due to a permanent disability, the physical or mental conditions that are affirmatively placed at issue are not readily apparent, which complicates the determination as to what would be " related " to the "condition at issue.
After citing different interpretations from the other Appellate Divisions regarding the scope of the waiver of physician-patient privilege when loss of enjoyment of life is claimed, the Court determined that, by pleading "total disability ", a plaintiff has waived the physician-patient privilege as to his entire medical history. However, a carrier can establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on this category without medical evidence by citing other evidence, such as the injured worker's own deposition testimony or records demonstrating that injured worker was not prevented from performing all of the substantial activities constituting customary daily activities for the prescribed period.
Once the carrier meets this initial burden, the injured worker must then demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to whether he or she sustained a serious injury The injured worker claims he sustained, inter alia, injuries to his right knee, left shoulder and lumbar spine, and an exacerbation of a preexisting left ankle injury as a result of the August 9, motor vehicle accident.
Thus, injured worker failed to submit any evidence that raises a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Petitioner Gonzalez is alleged to have sustained injury on August 14, in a fall while working at the MTA yard in the Bronx. Time sheets reveal that Gonzalez had regularly attended work at the Bronx railway yard where his injury was sustained during the period beginning October 31 and extending through November 16, , and he does not dispute that he traveled by car.
In addition, petitioners do not allege that they were prevented from using alternative methods of public transportation to reach their attorney's office.
Petitioners, in Gonzalez's sworn affidavit, have boldly misrepresented their ability to travel into the City to meet with counsel and omitted that Gonzalez actually did travel into the City on numerous occasions in the weeks immediately prior to expiration of the time period for serving a notice of claim.
While the absence of support for a proffered excuse may be outweighed by other considerations petitioners' attempt to deceive the court as to why they were unable to file a timely notice of claim should not be condoned and alone warrants dismissal of the application.
With claimant receiving benefits from a injury at the temporary total disability rate since , a Law Judge issued a decision in November that continued benefits at that rate. Then in May , the Judge issued a decision continuing those benefits but granted the carrier the right to suspend payments if claimant failed to produce current medical evidence. After the employer appealed both decisions, a Board panel affirmed the Judge.
With regards to the decision, because the issues of medical evidence not warranting a finding of temporary total disability and voluntary withdrawal from the work force were not raised before the Judge, the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider them. When the carrier raised these issues at the hearing and the Judge ruled against them, the Board found that the appeal from that decision was " moot " because the arguments were identical to the ones it refused to consider in the appeal from the November decision.
Under these circumstances, the Court determined that, " the Board failed to engage in its fact-finding role, thereby depriving [the employer] of the opportunity to have the Board consider the merits of an issue that was properly preserved,' [and] its decision must be reversed to allow that review to occur.
After filing his claim in March , after a hearing in claimant and his treating physicians appeared and testified, a Law Judge found that the claimant had sustained a work-related injury. A Board penal reversed, finding that the medical evidence did not support that finding. The claimant testified that he immediately sought medical treatment and the next day he advised the employer. Although the physician noted that claimant lifted heavy objects as part of his job, no mention was made of when or how claimant injured his back, and the physician acknowledged that claimant previously had been treated for back pain by another provider.
When claimant returned for a follow-up visit one week later, the physician noted that claimant's "back went out " the preceding Monday and that claimant reported "lift[ing] some furniture at home. Claimant then was referred to an orthopedist, who evaluated him on October 15, According to the orthopedist's records, claimant's back pain began at home on October 10, , this "recurrent " pain came on "[g]radually" and claimant " denie[d] trauma.
Claimant sustained several work-related injuries to his shoulders, causing him to miss time from work. Although a Law Judge ruled a temporary total disability and awarded benefits for several of periods of time when he was not working, the employer did not file a request for reimbursement for two of those time periods until after the awards of compensation for those periods had been made. When the Law Judge later awarded an SLU, he precluded the employer from seeking reimbursement for the two time periods for which it had not timely filed claims for reimbursement.
That statute provides that "any salary or wages paid to. In rejecting the employers argument the Court wrote: To analyze these provisions, "the text of a statute is the best evidence of legislative intent and, where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used.
Because these two provisions are related statutes in the Workers' Compensation Law, they "must be construed together unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed, and courts must harmonize the related provisions in a way that renders them compatible. These cross appeals resulted when the Albany County Supreme Court, on September 4, , among other actions.
After the employer, in , raised the issue of attachment to the labor market and sought the testimony of claimant and his medical providers on the issue, a Law Judge denied the employer's request for claimant's testimony, but continued the matter for cross-examination of two of claimant's medical providers. In reversing, the Court noted that: After viewing the video surveillance, the physician concluded that "claimant clearly is capable of doing far more home-based activities than he admitted to during my independent examination.
Under these circumstances, the Board's finding that "[t]he video surveillance does not show any images of the claimant engaging in physical activities inconsistent with any representation he had made to any of the parties' doctors" was determined not to be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Similarly here, the physician who performed the independent medical examination stated that the surveillance revealed claimant to be "capable of doing far more home-based activities than he admitted to during [the] independent examination.
The Court returned the case to the Board for a determination of whether claimant's failure to disclose the extent of his abilities was material, and done both knowingly and for the purpose of obtaining benefits.
She had surgery in and, in , a nerve conduction study revealed possible mild left carpal tunnel syndrome as well. Her doctor's progress report submitted to the Board diagnosed a continued carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands.
But the Board found the progress report left issues regarding the left hand unresolved at the time that the employer sought transfer of liability. Accordingly, the Board's determination that the case was never truly closed was supported by substantial evidence and the transfer of liability was properly denied.
In March , claimant — now employed by the City of Geneva Police Department hereinafter GPD — was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Shortly thereafter, he began receiving mental health treatment, resigned from his employment with GPD, filed a claim for workers' comp citing his time at the WTC as the cause of injury, naming HPD as his employer. The carrier appealed to the Court on the basis that contended claimant's activity did not constitute participation in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations such that it would be covered by Article 8-A and the Board improperly denied their application for FBR.
After 15 years working as a school custodian, in , claimant sought medical treatment for problems, resulting in surgery on both elbows and knees. He filed a claim in September for workers comp based on injuries attributable to " repetitive use of physical labor going up and down the stairs, lifting heavy boxes, [and] shoveling snow.
The law judge reestablished the claim, set the data disablement as January 19, , and included the left knee in the claim. Given that the cited precedent is a prior decision in this case, the applicable doctrine is law of the case. In view of this, the Law Judge's September 10, reserved decision did not foreclose further consideration of this issue by the Board. Technically speaking, the doctrine of res judicata "precludes a party from litigating 'a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action [or proceeding] between the same parties involving the same subject matter'".
Inasmuch as a prior action or proceeding is not involved here, this doctrine is inapplicable. Although he knew his problems were related to his work as of March and had surgery and medical treatment for a year and a half before filing his claim, he left the employer with no knowledge that the injuries were work-related nor giving it an opportunity to investigate the claim.
Here, claimant acknowledged that he spent most of his time at a membership cafe and occasionally, among other things, unlocked the cafe door in the morning and swept the premises in exchange for the owner, his cousin, allowing him to sleep in a room above the cafe following marital difficulties. According to claimant, he received no compensation for any minimal activity that he performed at the cafe.
The employer's surveillance videos and testimony of its private investigator did not contradict claimant's testimony, which primarily show claimant sitting or standing outside the cafe smoking, talking on a cell phone or drinking coffee.
To the extent that the employer challenges the denial of its application for full Board review on the ground that it was denied solely by the chair on behalf of the Board, we find that such challenge is moot given that a three-member panel subsequently considered and denied that application for full Board review as set forth in a decision filed June 23, Injured in , claimant first sought medical treatment in April and continued to work until March The filing of his claim [ Ed.
The Court noted that decisions on compensation claims issued by arbitrators pursuant to an authorized alternative dispute resolution program are not reviewed by the Workers Comp Board, but may be appealed directly to the Court.
Also, the substantial evidence standard does not apply to appeals of claims reaching the Court through the latter procedural route; rather, these cases are reviewed under the standard applicable to review of arbitration awards in general. Pursuant to that standard, courts have limited power to review an arbitrator's award and the Court cited a prior ruling: Claimant has not shown that the award was irrational, which would require a showing of an utter lack of any proof to justify the award.
Claimant presented proof that his first treatment occurred in April As claimant concedes that the date of disablement is a discretionary determination and the date of first medical treatment is a proper option, the arbitrator's selection of that date was not irrational.
Singer of counsel to the Special Funds respondent. The carrier appealed, during which time the claimant died from causes unrelated to the underlying injury. The carrier then requested that the decisions directing it to make a lump-sum payment to the ATF be rescinded because of claimant's death. The Board upheld the decision by a 2 to 1 vote.
Because there was a dissent, the carrier was entitled to and sought full Board review. As noted in my e-mail BULLETIN issued this afternoon, just after the Court of Appeals issued this decision, it is my sense that the legislation was either purposely muddled or designed in the same way as the proverbial elephant: Langan, a former U.
Treasury official who wrote the following in an op-ed entitled " The Language of Diplomacy ": At one point in my federal government career, I wrote up an explanation of a complicated matter in which I considered to be an extremely clear, cogent manner.
The senior government official to whom I reported read it carefully, ruminating and adjusting his glasses as he read it. Then he looked up at me and said " This isn't any good.
I understand it completely. Take it back and muddy it up. I want the statement to be able to be interpreted two or three ways. After a claim was placed for a November work related injury, the carrier controverted the claim on the grounds that the employer's policy had been canceled in August due to failure of the employer to pay the premiums. In affirming the Board, the Court noted that the record showed that the carrier had sent the cancellation notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the employer's chief executive officer at her home address, on or about August 4, , with an effective date of cancellation of August 18, Claimant sustained non-work-related, serious injuries to his neck, back and left shoulder as the result of and automobile accidents.
He continued working as a car inspector for the self-insured employer until , when after developing incapacitating neck, back and leg pain, he applied for workers' comp, asserting that his physical problems and a consequential psychiatric injury were related to repetitive work-related tasks and constituted an occupational disease.
Although the employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy and, as such, was precluded from submitting evidence on the issue of whether claimant's condition arose out of and in the course of his employment, the Judge, later affirmed by a Board panel, found the opinions of claimant's treating physicians regarding causation to be incredible and disallowed the claim. The employer's failure to timely file a notice of controversy did not "relieve claimant from his burden to demonstrate a causal relationship" between his employment and medical condition.
The Court then noted that:. The record here reflects that claimant has been receiving related medical treatment from at least onward. Claimant sought more intensive treatment after his pain worsened in , but no physician drew a causal link between the condition and his employment until he raised the issue with his physicians at a friend's urging.
An orthopedic surgeon who treated claimant further testified that claimant gave conflicting accounts as to how he had aggravated the condition in and that claimant's spinal and shoulder problems could have resulted from degenerative changes.
The Board was free to reject this less-than-compelling medical evidence as incredible and, as such, substantial evidence supports its finding that claimant did not show the existence of a causally related occupational disease.
After a work-elated back injury resulted in the claimant leaving the nursing profession because of her moderate, permanent partial disability and began working in a delicatessen, at a lower wage.
Upon claimant's application for review, the Board increased claimant's degree of disability and concluded that her wage loss benefits should be based upon her actual reduced earnings from the delicatessen where she now works, as opposed to her degree of disability, and adjusted her weekly awards accordingly. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly explained that, for claimants who have demonstrated that they remain attached to the labor market, "where actual earnings during the period of the disability are established, wage earning capacity must be determined exclusively by the actual earnings of the injured employee without evidence of capacity to earn more or less during such disability period.
As the result of a work-related automobile accident, claimant successfully filed a claim for injuries to his the neck and back later that year, with claimant directed " to submit medical evidence for all additional sites claimed. In April , after alleging that he had sustained mental injuries as a result of the incident, that claim was combined with his case which was amended to include consequential posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety.
The claimant did return to work but suffered from various stress issues on his return, all of which were clearly delineated by his treating psychologist who stated in no uncertain terms that those conditions flowed from the May incident. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Insider September 18, This case has been posted because there are a number of very unhappy injured workers who feel that the NYS workers compensation systems, i. This decision basically tells them that seeking redress through the federal courts will not work.
That is an overstatement. Email the Insider with your c omments and questions. The Court noted in a footnote that: I have sent an e-mail to the law firm inquesion asking about the continuing to appel Board decisionson this issue and will print their response next week. One year after receiving an award based upon her claim that work-related stress caused her to develop an adjustment disorder with mixed depressed mood and anxiety and chronic emotional stress, she sought to amend her claim to include causally-related cardiac conditions of hypertension, mitral and tricuspid heart valve insufficiency and an enlarged left atrium.
The result of several hearing found no further causally-related disability and no entitlement to payment for intermittent lost time. He further opined that the minimal mitral and tricuspid valve insufficiency levels evidenced in claimant's echocardiogram report were normal, as such trace conditions are commonly found in most people.
Finally, he opined that claimant's enlarged left atrium could not have been caused by stress or psychological factors, based upon the results of the echocardiogram. As to the request for intermittent lost time benefits, the claimant had been taking off an entire day for a minute appointment, which her psychologist said could have been scheduled for later in the afternoon.
The self-insured employer SIE asserted that she had staged the fall. A Law Judge, after conducting hearings and viewing video footage of the incident, established the claim.
The employer alleged that claimant misrepresented the degree of his disability. After several hearings, decisions by Law Judges, Board panels, and a full board review, it was determined that while the Fund does not have standing "t o litigate the primary issues of compensability of the underlying claim for benefits " or " to reopen a claimant's case and contest the compensability of the claim, " it does have standing with respect to proceedings involving claims against the Fund.
Singer of counsel to the Special Funds. The plaintiff was assigned by TemPositions to Columbia University and, while walking to the coatroom where she was working, tripped and fell.
Columbia University established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint through the deposition testimony and affidavit of the general manager at Columbia and the affidavit of TemPositions' chief executive officer, that the defendant controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff's work.
The defendant also had the authority to discharge the plaintiff, and the work she performed was in furtherance of the defendant's business.
In addition, the plaintiff, at her own deposition, the transcript of which was submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, stated, inter alia , that TemPositions told her where and to whom to report, but that the defendant's supervisors instructed her on her work duties. Thus, the defendant established, prima facie , that it was the plaintiff's special employer.
It therefore cannot be the exclusive remedy. However, the critical distinction in this case is that the motor vehicle accident involved vehicles operated by coemployees. The prescribed SUM endorsement language at issue is plain and unambiguous.
Indeed, as noted above, the standard form for SUM coverage was promulgated in order to "eliminate ambiguity, minimize confusion and maximize its utility. In the overwhelming majority of those decisions, all interpreting similar "legally entitled to recover damages" policy language, the courts have concluded that, because of workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions, a plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits.
Here, pursuant to the plain language of the SUM endorsement, plaintiff is not "legally entitled to recover damages" from the owner and operator of the offending vehicle because of the status of the operator, Cathlyn Haggerty, as plaintiff's coemployee.
Claimant, a police sergeant, filed a claim for workers' comp benefits asserting that he suffered a work-related myocardial infarction December 18, , first experiencing mild symptoms while exercising that morning and that, after ascending a flight of stairs at work, he began experiencing shortness of breath, chest pain and arm numbness.
His subsequent visit to the hospital showed he suffered a myocardial infarction. The Board ultimately ruled that the infarction was precipitated by the stair climbing, and that it constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of claimant's employment.
As the two cardiologists who participated in this case opined that the stair climbing at work acted to trigger a myocardial infarction and no medical evidence was presented to call the opinions of those physicians into question, substantial evidence in the record supported the Board's determination that claimant's myocardial infarction was causally linked to his employment.
After the claimant testified in that she had not worked for anyone in any capacity during the time following her injury, the carrier presented surveillance videos and a written report prepared by a private investigator reflecting claimant leaving her home, driving to a chiropractor's office and remaining there for several hours, wearing a uniform bearing that office's logo, and running errands with other people from that office.
The Court agreed that this constituted substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination that claimant was working after her injury and concealed her employment for the purposes of receiving benefits.
The employer conceded, however, that it did not raise this issue either before the WC Law Judge or in its initial application for review by the Board panel, and the Board did not address it. In both cases, ' claimants ' appealed, challenging both the denial of venue transfer and the penalty. In fact, these two cases bring to a total of three that have been argued, and lost, on this one issue by the Law Offices of Joseph Romano, since December of last year.
After the claimant had obtained benefits, she and the carrier stipulated that claimant had sustained a permanent partial disability and had not voluntarily removed herself from the work force, with a decision to that effect issued in Several years later, an IME found claimant capable of working with restrictions.
The Board, noting its departure from prior precedent, held that " a claimant's failure to respond to a work search inquiry without something more may not constitute sufficient evidence of a triable issue of fact upon which a reopening may be based.
If this case appears familiar, it is. The petitioning law firm, the Law Offices of Joseph A. Claimant was an employee of Alitalia until his position was eliminated as part of a staff reduction program at which time he was hired by Swissport to, in effect, perform for Swissair exactly the same duties under the same manner of supervision and work rules.
The employer ILT is a tutoring referral and billing service that provides in-home tutors to clients seeking assistance with school work and test preparation. After being assessed for unemployment insurance contributions on behalf of the tutors, ILT countered that its tutors were independent contractors. Claimant injured his back while working and thereafter worked intermittently both for his original employer and at a new employer, LKQ Broadway where he was ultimately terminated absenteeism.
After he ceased working and received unemployment insurance benefits, a Law Judge concluded that his separation from employment was due to his compensable back injury and that he did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. A Board panel, in a split decision, reversed the Law Judge and on Full Board Review, determined that claimant's awards must be rescinded, finding that claimant failed to produce sufficient evidence of an attachment to the labor market.
Nevertheless, "even though there is in the record substantial evidence to support the determination made," the Board's "failure to conform to [its] precedent will. Although the Board found that the claimant was actively participating in a search with One-Stop, because claimant did not provide documentation of his participation, the Board concluded that he failed to adequately demonstrate attachment to the labor market.
Under these circumstances, the Board has not adequately explained its departure from its prior precedent. Accordingly, the decision of the full Board must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Board for further proceedings. Claimant sought psychiatric treatment shortly thereafter and successfully filed a claim for posttraumatic stress and adjustment disorder. The employer argued that the verbal threat could not give rise to a compensable stress claim, noting mitigating factors such as the presence of others in the operating room and claimant's familiarity with the surgeon's " difficult " personality.
However, the Board determined that claimant's uncontroverted psychiatric diagnoses were caused by the incident, and that, threats of physical violence made by her supervisor constituted greater stress than that which normally occurs in similar work environments.
Inasmuch as such determination is supported by substantial evidence and this Court cannot "reject the Board's choice simply because a contrary determination would have been reasonable," it must be upheld. While working as an assistant store manager, he made a telephone call to a coworker at her home to discuss a work-related matter. Following that telephone call, the coworker's husband became convinced that claimant and the coworker were engaged in a romantic relationship, prompting the coworker's husband to undertake a course of threatening and harassing conduct against claimant, culminating in an unsuccessful murder-for-hire plot against him.
Additionally, the coworker's husband contacted claimant's supervisor regarding the alleged affair, which triggered an internal investigation by the employer and ultimately resulted in claimant requesting a transfer to another store.
As a result, claimant's preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder was exacerbated to the point that he was unable to continue to work. Claimant the successfully filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, affirmed by a split Board panel and a Full Board review. Here, the work-related phone call from claimant to his coworker's home was the basis for the subsequent harassment of claimant at his place of employment, the employer's internal investigation and claimant's request for a transfer, all of which exacerbated claimant's preexisting stress disorder.
And since the record revealed no connection between claimant and the coworker's husband outside of claimant's work-related duties, the Board properly found the required nexus between the threatening conduct that exacerbated claimant's preexisting condition and claimant's employment.
Joseph of counsel to James A. In , claimant's husband hereinafter decedent was found to be permanently partially disabled due to injuries to his lungs and he received benefits until his death in The Court agree with the Board that substantial evidence was represented by the decedent's death certificate listing the immediate cause of death as sepsis, as a consequence of respiratory failure and a C medical report completed by decedent's physician of 20 years, who most recently saw decedent in June , opined that decedent's death was caused either directly or indirectly by his work-related illness.
In , plaintiff determined that the Trust was insolvent and assumed its administration. Several appeals and cross appeals were made by all the parties regarding leal fees how much and by whom.
After claimant suffered compensable injuries, he was awarded a schedule loss of use and the case closed in Thereafter, his condition deteriorated and, in September , his orthopedic surgeon requested authorization to perform surgery, a request which, because the carrier did not respond within 30 days, was approved, in November , by WCB Chairman issuing " an order stating that such request is deemed authorized. In March , a Law Judge shifted liability to the Fund effective , but held that the carrier remained liable for the surgical costs due to its failure to properly administer the request for authorization.
The Court ruled that: Here, the employer entered into an agreement with claimant on December 30, that permitted claimant to retain the proceeds of the third-party action in exchange for, among other things, his forbearance of future indemnity benefits. In our view, these proceeds constituted a lump-sum payment for purposes of the statute. Thus, because the settlement agreement effectively " disposed " of the employer's obligation to pay future indemnity benefits in exchange for claimant's retention of a lump-sum payment from the third-party action, application of the statute is appropriate to bar transfer of liability for future medical benefits to the Special Fund.
The Court reversed the Board, sending the case back for the Board to calculate the date to which the amount paid in the settlement would extend? Claimant was not registered or affiliated with any volunteer organization or agency during the course of these two days, and he did not aid in the rescue or recovery operations after September 12, A Board panel, citing the definition of "first response emergency services personnel " as set forth in the final revised Order of the Chair No.
In reversing the Board, the Court summarized its position: Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Benefits were awarded and, then, rescinded August 28, by a Board Panel.
A year later, on August 14, , a Law Judge awarded benefits for January 21 to April 1, but omitted mention of the 9-month period. However, this contention ignores the fact that, pursuant to the August 28, WCLJ decision, compensation for the period between February and October had been held in abeyance and was, as of yet, unresolved. Although the employer further argues that the case should have been considered truly closed because no further evidence was submitted regarding the periods held in abeyance, that contention is belied by the fact that the employer itself affirmatively addressed the issue in January , evincing the fact that said compensation was still at issue.
Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that the case was never truly closed and, thus, transfer of liability to the Special Fund would have been premature. Singer of counsel to the Special Funds and Iris A. After the claimant was classified with a permanent partial disability due to a left shoulder injury, the carrier leaned that the claimant suffered from, among other things, preexisting hypertension and degenerative disc disease.
Singer of counsel to the Special Funds Conservation Committee, respondent. Claimant, an insurance salesperson, sustained compensable injuries to her head, neck and back from a fall at work, retiring at the end of that year and, in , was diagnosed with Parkinson's. She sought to amend her claim adding consequentially related Parkinson's and seeking post retirement benefits. The WCB determined her disease was unrelated to the accident and that she had retired voluntarily.
Claimant admitted never informing her employer that she was unable to work, never received medical advice to retire, and made no effort to seek a disability retirement pension.