Then the heavy duty orange extension cords come into play. I woke up next to my nephew screaming. In April , claimant's physician requested authorization for an MRI which, on April 23, , showed a medial and lateral meniscal tear. NJMIC argued that claimant's accident was excluded from coverage under the "limited other states' insurance endorsement " that confined the policy's New York coverage to temporarily assigned New Jersey employees. Taking packs of squash seeds to work to give to a fellow gardener.
New York State Education Department
Will collect the tax write off. Bought VBS materials for the church. No judgement here on the hot dogs. I am not a lover of hot dogs in general, but there is just something about a Costco dog. Cut open a tube of toothpaste to get several more days out of it. Found three hotel soaps in a bathroom drawer partially used. I bring them home since I cannot stand to leave them to be thrown out and used them to make liquid hand soap for our dispenser.
I throw ripped plastic bags into a box. Went through the box and doubled or tripled up ripped bags to make poop bags. I tie the finished product so they stay doubled or tripled and can be easily fished out of a canvas bag we keep in the car so we can pick up after our dogs when we are out and about.
Found a partially used jar of mustard seeds. With a few other pantry items, made rustic mustard for use on future hot dogs. A century ago I bought a box of pie dough mix, for reasons I cannot fathom. I mixed it up and made a quiche using up bits and bobs of declining vegetables.
Glad to be rid of the pie dough and vegetable parts and the end product with cheese in it, of course tasted pretty good. Had two apples that were sad to have lived so long in the fridge. Not good enough to eat and not enough to make applesauce. I have made liquid soap from bars. It is essentially water, soap, and glycerin. There are several recipes online. I think I used the one from The Wellness Mama. I added to much glycerin the first time that I made it, and it came out a little slimy.
Your 4, time with people matters…even if you are a cheap date. Sticking to a budget is no reason to not spend time with people, as you are an example of. I made sun tea instead of using the stove. We were getting low on things, but it helps to use up what we have, for example when I ran out of sugar, I used up my last bit of honey. I put my warm coffee in the honey bottle and shook it up to sweeten it. I pulled out all my plastic and glass jars and containers and sorted the ones I want to keep to reuse and plan on asking a couple of friends tomorrow if they want any.
Is a good price? How has it compared to just shopping at thrift and consignment stores? They are much higher than most thrift stores. I ordered a dress that arrived with a hole in it. They ended up giving me a credit for the shipping charges, but only after some back and forth with emails. A friend I volunteer with likes to go to lunch when we are done with our volunteer job. Yesterday I suggested we go to a place just down the street. We walked there and back.
I used my debit card to get cash back. Many of the ATMs that we previously could use for free are no longer in the network. I avoid banking fees so I use my debit card for small purchases and then get cash back as a solution. They will be great sides with dinner the next few nights. I told her we could probably order the item but she wanted to go. I have found more miscellaneous coins lately. Most importantly, I continue to follow this blog and appreciate all the efforts of Katy and her commenting readers.
We believe in spending money on travel and experiencing other cultures with our kids while they are still home with us. This spring break we went to Austria, Hungary and Slovakia. It was an insanely cool trip. Although not frugal to take the trip, we did do some frugal things while there… 2. I had packed some snacks too so we ate those when hungry as well. Other than one time when the subways were shut down and we had to take a cab to the Shonbrunn Palace for the easter market and palace tour, we basically walked everywhere, saving cab and subway money and good for our health.
We did pay for a tour to go from Vienna to Budapest and it was worth every penny because we were only there one day and the things we wanted to see were all spread out which would have made it really difficult to figure out on our own with public transportation. I gave all these things one last hurrah by wearing them on my trip and then getting rid of them.
I threw out the socks and undies and folded the shirts and sweaters and left them on a bed with a note saying to please pass them on to someone who could use them. I also took some samples of lotion, eye cream, etc and used them up there.
I came home with a much lighter suitcase. Well, I finally found some money — only a penny but it is now mine. Continue to get almost all books from the library. Pillows have gotten uncomfortable for me but are probably ok for infrequent guest use so I only bought one new one. Was given donuts for free. You are reading that correctly. Cooked a pot of black beans. Ate them last night, eating them tonight. Froze 4 containers for future meals. Having rice with them both nights.
Got pork roasts marked down so I froze 4 and I put the 5th in the crockpot for dinner with above beans and rice. Have to figure out a veggie. Hung my laundry up on drying racks since the weather still stinks! Donuts can be frozen for future consumption — I know because I do this sometimes when I get more donuts than we can eat before they lose freshness! I have loads of pastries in the freezer already.
I figured I would share them. Here are my FFT … 1 Yesterday— yes yesterday— my adult son asked me to help him finish his taxes. I was not totally honest. I could think of things that I would rather do. I did not expect it to take long. Six hours after starting, I filed an extension for him. However, it was definitely frugal for him.
Since the extension was filed on time, there were no tax penalties. Saving my kids money does make me happy. The buyer insists that the item is flawed, but it is not. I offered the buyer her money back if she wanted return it. However, I also sold two additional items today at a nice profit. It is cheap, filling, and good for you.
I planned dinner, but I am just too tired to cook it. It took more time than I expected, but I made more money than expected. This is a good thing. However, I really need to clean my house. My budget is not going according to plan, so I need to rework things.
I am trying so hard to increase my savings rate. I hear you on the pain that ebay can be. The tag was visible in the first photo, and the second photo was a close up of the tag — clear and easy to read.
Just click, buy ….. I was told that I was negligent also. When I get frustrated, I remind myself that most people are kind. I got the impression that my buyer was trying to work a discounted price too. They complain by nitpicking on a detail, and count on the seller to issue a partial refund rather than dealing with negative feedback or having to accept a refund if they report it to ebay. Brought home the shampoo and conditioner from the hotel we stayed at during our work conference.
No late fees or interest charges for me! It was totally delicious, saved some otherwise wasted ingredients, and it even made enough for a second dinner as leftovers! One of my grad students works at the campus coffee shop and he was there when I was in line today, so I accepted his offer of a free fill-up of my travel mug. Reading library books, bringing lunch from home, riding my bike to work, hanging laundry on the line to dry—all the usual money-saving stuff!
So make sure to check out your Life Balance benefits when searching for a cellular service provider. I just re-read that last part. It came out wrong…. Mended two socks, a pair of pants and a dog bed-again. Made a dog toy from a sock and a plastic bottle. They loved it until they killed it.
My husband ebayed a large nutcracker that has been taking up space for years. Went on a 2 night girl trip with friends. Not frugal, but it has been a long time since I did that. Gas and hotel split 4 ways, free hotel breakfast, senior discounts on some activities and others that were free, and very little spent on shopping. One night we skipped dinner and had snacks in the hotel room. Came back refreshed and energized. Saw another movie with our Movie Pass card. The usual of eating all leftovers, or feeding them to dogs, composting scraps, reading library books, wearing thrifted clothing.
My wonderful husband took the kids to the dentist today. My daughter needed one small filling, and he got it filled while my son was getting his cleaning. It may have also saved on the copay, but it mostly saved my sanity be not having three more errands!
Cleaned the bathroom today with baking soda and vinegar. It needed it, it looks nice now, and the change was cheap. The Laundry Fairy has been feeling unappreciated around here, and she quit.
I taught my daughter to wash her clothes and hang them on the line. It makes the house look better, and it makes me feel better, for no money. I even decluttered a couple of movies which I will post to ebay.
I am having an insane week at work which leads to more frugal fails than usual: Support the cause, just forgot until the very last moment to pay the tax! I have never heard of that also. I guess since it is a tax, it is a requirement?
Sorry if it is a stupid question. Yup, it is required. It was referred to voters by the City Council for approval a few years ago and the voters approved it. Still eating down the freezer. Made chicken stock in the slow cooker from a roast chicken.
The chicken was dinner two nights and lunch two days. I got my free packets of seeds from my gardening club. Members get 8 packets of seeds a year, four in autumn and four in Spring. I almost always choose the vegetable seeds. Ended up in our freezer. Yes, and think of all the probiotics you got in your vegetable.
Wonder what that dream means? I got some books out of the little free library and have started reading a couple. I love those things! Some nights we are eating simple eggs and toast. Inexpensive and pretty healthy. Walking for exercise instead of paying to join a gym. Still taking expired vitamins. Also, I did a trial of the glucosamine for anyone interested. I was on both regularly.
So I stopped taking glucosamine for about a week and in about two days in I was aching all over, especially my back where I have disc herniation. As soon as I started taking it again, I am mostly pain free. Oh, and my glucosamine is also expired. I believe in it for sure now…Just my two cents. Technically that could still be the placebo effect. The way to really test it would be to take two identical pills in two different weeks- one glucosamine, one a placebo, and then measure the effects.
Then find out what you were taking…. Yeah, that would take the mental part out of it. The end result is the same.. There are many nutritional protocols and supplements that can help control symptoms.
Also, I love reading your posts from down under. I was rough on my body as a child, also. I did a lot of gymnastics, rode horses, and just lots of climbing and falls in general. I have been tested and I do not have it per the bloodwork but the rheumatologist still thinks I do, so go figure. Lots of chemo drugs are being used now with some good results. Or would you go a more natural route? I personally only take supplements for now. Not knocking it at all — I guess I was just wondering if the glucosamine works.
But I can see how my comments could have come off a bit snippy. Your comments are fine. I hate wasting money on things that are BS. Maybe you should try taking it for a few weeks. For many drugs on the market, the experts never really know the mechanism of action, they just figured out it worked while using it for something else.
Honestly, I think it works because when I would forget to take it for a few days because I was feeling so much better, the pain begins to come back. Again, that could be placebo.. Let us know if you try it, please! But then I tend to be that way myself. And the content is all free! We use glucosamine and fish oil for one of our dogs that has joint pain.
But as mentioned above, does take six to eight weeks to get into system good. We started off with liquid then transitioned to pills. She gets both pills in the morning before breakfast. I still have my menstrual cup that I bought over three years ago.
I cut green onions and chives from the garden and dehydrated them. An onion in our pantry sprouted. Instead of tossing it, I found directions online to plant it. Hey — those costco hot dogs with a shared order of fries with gravy constitute a date at my house lol. I question the nutritional value of almost all food when eating out so in the big picture the hot dog was a win on the frugal side. We always feel super dissapointed about the cost versus yum ratio when we eat out — with the exception of the costco hot dogs as they are sold as a loss leader with s pricing for a reason.
Frugal this week — credit card got compromised so was without for a whole week and surprise surpise I spent far less at the grocery store than I normally do because I paid cash. Must be a regional thing! What a sweet surprise! She made my work day a whole lot brighter! With one son in college and another starting in the fall, this is not good news.
I recently mentioned that I had a big car repair. Um … I had them do the recommended repairs. They offered a free detailing instead not interested. I want the refund. Said party is a 40th birthday and the invite states no gifts. I froze it, which will come in handy for future lunches.
Got a call during work on monday that i needed to head to NH for my mom. I ran home, packed a few things including snacks and hit the road. I did step out monday evening to go across the street and buy a med. My brother and sisters were there for a while and my brother and i were there when she took her last breath. My mother sang like an Angel and now she is singing with Angels! The church was available for a saturday funeral and we can use their hall too!
Since my mother pre-paid her funeral arrangements, i only have the tips for the organist a very good friend of my mother and the singer another friend and tips for the caterer and volunteers to take care of. My mother had some cash in an envelope tucked away and it should be enough to tip anyone we need to.
Since DH passed last year, my DS already had a suit to wear and it was cleaned already. She had told me he got her more money back than she had ever received in the past! DS and I are staying at my in-laws and one of my sisters has opened her home to nieces and nephews. She was one of a kind, and so are you. And condolences to all your family as you assemble for her funeral.
So sorry for the loss of your mother—and your DH. Sounds like you are surrounded by loved ones. Nancy, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. May her love stay in your heart forever. Nancy I am so sorry for your loss. Even though your mother is at peace now it is still a huge loss for you I am sure. And having lost your DH last year must make it all the harder. Nancy, so sorry for your loss. And keep the stories coming! We are an eager audience.
And put quotes that she used to say to us kids and the grandkids. Loved your ability to find humor in this most difficult of times. So sorry for your loss. My father passed 5 years ago and we still get together with my mom, sister and her family, and some of his closest friends to go out to dinner for his birthday. The funny stories and there are so many get shared and laughed about all over again. Awe, so sorry to hear.
I have so enjoyed your last few posts about your mom. They are beautiful stories that you can take with you. Never an easy thing, to lose a mother. Getting here late, but Nancy, you have my sympathies — and my admiration for your humor and grace. You are in my thoughts. He paid for my lunch. I think he was thrilled to have the company, since we talked about the upcoming vacation he and his wife are taking in a few weeks. Free lunch and good company is always nice.
The ones I have are faux pearls, but they belonged to my Mom. So I wore them and honored two gracious ladies today and they look nice. No vacation no expense, I guess. At least the dentist gives a modest discount if major work like crowning is paid for by check, which we did. A Marie, so sorry about the ticket! 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.
The Court concluded, " Thus, despite the existence of evidence that may have supported a different result, we find the Board's determination to be supported by substantial evidence. Although claimant testified at length about his many disabilities, limited lifestyle, etc, evidence showed this not to be true. In both cases, the claimant, on an undated form on his counsel's letterhead, requested that hearings on his claim be conducted in the City of White Plains, Westchester County for convenience even though the claimant did not live in that county nor was injured in that county.
If this cases appears familiar, it is. On December 19, , the 3rd A. The carrier consented to the settlement upon the understanding that the carrier's lien for past benefits paid would be satisfied out of the settlement proceeds, and that it would have "a credit for any future benefits owed the claimant until the proceeds of the recovery are exhausted" The Law Judge found that he could not make a proper award without a signed closing statement that indicated the date of payment in the third-party action, and directed claimant to produce that document.
Claimant sought Board review of the Law Judge's decision, but did not assert that the Law Judge erred in requiring a signed statement and, indeed, filed one shortly after the decision was issued. The Court then added a footnote: The Court previously reversed the Board on this same issue in this case on March 14, AD3d , . When the carrier appealed that decision, this Court reversed the Board, holding that past Board decisions had permitted a carrier to begin taking its credit for a third-party recovery as of the date of consent — when such right was specifically reserved in the consent letter — and that the Board had not provided a rational basis for departing from such precedents, rendering its decision arbitrary.
The Court again reversed the Board, noting among its many objections, the following: Although claimant sustained a work-related injury to her right shoulder in and experienced pain in that shoulder, it was not until she underwent surgery to repair a rotator cuff tear. When a Board panel affirmed, it assessed a penalty against claimant's attorney for seeking review without reasonable grounds. Thus, substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's finding that claimant's knee injury was a direct, not a consequential, injury.
After hearings regarding permanency and degree of cognitive impairments, a Law Judge expanded the claim to include a left eye injury, traumatic brain injury, and encephalomalacia, and then credited medical evidence that claimant had sustained a permanent total disability.
In December , claimant, a production laborer in a food processing plant, suffered a work-related knee injury. Claimant argues that the Board erred in relying solely upon her level of medical impairment and failing to consider vocational factors in determining the compensation rate for her temporary disability during the week period following the IME. The Court noted that since this is primarily an issue of statutory construction and analysis, the Board's interpretation is not entitled to deference.
Prevailing arguments presented by: Because the loss of business, as the result of an action seeking the collection of the pro rata share of the deficit assessment or as the result of a potential stop work order, is an imminent risk that is " impossible, or very difficult, to quantify ,' " we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioners established by clear and convincing evidence that there is a risk of irreparable harm.
The orginal motion and the Court's page decision issued October 21, to accept it can be found here. Decedent collapsed while working as a laborer at a construction site, and was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
Just returning from a lunch break, the decedent bent down to pick up a pipe, collapsed without warning, and was taken to a hospital where efforts to revive him were unsuccessful. An autopsy later determined that decedent had a massive cardiomegaly, or an enlarged heart.
Nash attributed evidence of decedent's lack of sleep as a contributory factor, but did not rule out decedent's work as playing a role in his death. Claimant, a senior court officer, was injured shortly before the beginning of his work shift when he slipped and fell on ice.
The incident occurred on a public sidewalk that he was traversing to reach the government center after parking his car on the street. Although a Law Judge established the claim, a Board panel denied his ensuing application, finding that his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.
Although "[a]ccidents that occur on a public street away from the place of employment and outside working hours generally are not considered to arise out of and in the course of employment" , as this accident occurred near claimant's place of employment, his claim falls within " a gray area where the risks of street travel merge with the risks attendant with employment and where the mere fact that the accident took place on a public road or sidewalk may not ipso facto negate the right to compensation.
While the public sidewalk here was near the government center, it was open to the public and there was no showing that it was " otherwise controlled by the employer, that workers were encouraged to use it or that it existed solely to provide access to the workplace. The ice on the sidewalk, moreover, constituted "a danger that existed to any passerby traveling along the [sidewalk] in that location" and bore no relation to claimant's employment.
Prevailing argument presented by: Decedent, suffering from severe scoliosis, had since childhood fixation rods surgically installed to stabilize her spine. In , she fell down a flight of stairs while working, suffering back injuries. The fixation rods appeared to be intact in X rays taken immediately after the accident.
However, after subsequent X rays taken eight months later showed that one of the rods had broken, she requested authorization from the Board for surgery to remove the broken rod and take other steps to restore spinal stability. The Board credited the surgeon's testimony which, despite medical evidence to the contrary, provided substantial evidence for finding a causal link between the work accident and subsequent back surgery.
His failure to file C-4's during his detention was excused as he submitted C-4 forms indicating treatment for his established injuries prior to and immediately after his immigration detention.
He also provided medical records reflecting continuing symptoms and treatment for his work-related injuries while he was detained. Thereafter, claimant's attorney sought to amend the claim for additional sites, submitting a report from Dr.
Ultimately, the Law Judge granted a posthumous SLU award to claimant's widow based upon the medical report. When the carrier appealed contending that such award was not supported by substantial evidence, aa Boad panel agreed, reversing the Law Judge, The Court agreed, findings that " [t]hough the Board may not fashion its own expert medical opinions, it may reject medical evidence as incredible or insufficient even where.
After having been approved to receive home health aide services 10 hours per day, claimant's sister began providing these services. In dismissing the appeal the Court found that the claimant was receiving the approved home health care and the only issue was the rate of pay. At different points between and January , WCB deemed each of the trusts insolvent and assumed their administration.
WCB commenced this action, as the governmental entity charged with administering the state's workers' compensation system and as successor in interest to the trusts, asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and unjust enrichment. Supreme Court partially granted the motions.
This Court found that " [t]he cause of action for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty is premised on SGRisk's knowledge of the fiduciary duties owed by CRM and UHY to the trusts, and allegations that SGRisk intentionally continued to underestimate the trusts' future claims liabilities with the knowledge that this would aid and abet breaches of fiduciary duty by CRM and UHY.
Because the allegations of fraud perpetrated by SGRisk are essential to this claim, a six-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 8 is applicable, rendering the claim timely. Thereafter, by decision and amended decision, the Board granted a subsequent request by claimant that it consider new medical and scientific evidence submitted by claimant regarding the causal connection between his illness and exposure the toxic chemicals.
After a work-related back injury was established and claimant classified as permanently partially disabled, claimant was paid intermittent lost time benefits covering periods between and and, in January , his case was closed. Scotti , Consolidated Edison Company of N. In supporting the Board interpretation of the medical evidence, the Court wrote that, "[W]hile the Board cannot rely upon expert opinion evidence that amounts to nothing more than pure speculation, the Workers' Compensation Law does not require that medical opinions be expressed with absolute or reasonable medical certainty.
All that is required is that it be reasonably apparent that the expert meant to signify a probability as to the cause and that his [or her] opinion be supported by a rational basis. Claimant filed for comp benefits alleging that work-related stress caused her to develop depression, anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Suffering from a work-related injury and receiving compensation, claimant or, at his behest, his wife represented that he was not performing any unpaid work in several questionnaires submitted to the carrier and independent medical examiners, testifying to this in front of a Law Judge. Claimant's husband hereinafter decedent , after repeated exposed to asbestos in the course of employment, had his claim established in , finding him to be permanently partially disabled by asbestos-related pleural disease.
After decedent passed away from lung cancer and congestive heart failure in , claimant successfully sought survivor death benefits. After the employer sought reimbursement for the death benefits from the Fund, which required a showing that decedent's "lung cancer [was] causally related to, or was precipitated by, a dust disease such as asbestosis" , the Board determined that reimbursement was inappropriate because decedent's underlying claim had not been established for asbestosis.
After the employer sought to reopen decedent's claim for workers' comp benefits to include a diagnosis of asbestosis, as well as to establish the death benefit claim for that condition, the Board 1 denied the employer's request to reopen decedent's claim as untimely and 2 determined that, in any case, there was no proof connecting decedent's lung cancer to asbestosis. The Board had found that it was the employer who successfully fought to prevent the claim from being established for asbestosis.
Claimant, who worked as a bond trader on the 84th floor of the WTC of September 11, , had a brief absence from work as a result but returned to work in the same capacity for other firms, then was a principal in a bond trading firm. In , after a move into the financial services field and a corresponding reduction in income, he filed a claim for workers' comp which was established in for work-related posttraumatic stress disorder PTSD with a reduced earnings award as of January 1, and continuing.
Accordingly, the record does not demonstrate that claimant's withdrawal from his former profession was involuntary, particularly in light of the fact that he engaged in the profession for more than seven years following the events that precipitated his condition and does not claim lost wages for most of that period. Visic successfully argued that Board, in denying his request to reopen his case, simply ignored the only medical evidence in the file, evidence which supported the claimant.
Claimant, injured in and classified with a marked permanent partial disability, sought to reopen his claim in July via the submission of medical reports opining that he was now totally disabled. When the Board originally denied his application on the grounds that he had failed to submit new evidence of a change in his medical condition, this same Court reversed, finding that claimant had sought to introduce new evidence but had been denied the opportunity to do so.
Pervailing argument presented by Neven Visic representing himself on his own behalf. In declining the request, the Board found that carrier's letter and claimant's alleged failure to respond, standing alone, were insufficient to warrant a reopening of the claim.
Equally important, the Board noted that its finding was a departure from prior decisions , explaining that those decisions had not accounted for the heavy burden placed upon carriers seeking the suspension of benefits in previously closed permanent partial disability cases pursuant to 12 NYCRR Finally, we disagree with the carrier that the Board impermissibly departed from its earlier decisions, inasmuch as it acknowledged such a departure in its October 20, decision and clearly set forth its reasons for doing so.
I consider this a seminal case on the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market as Robert Grey has argued years that the Board has been too quick to find for carriers. He has apparently raised some key points which has prompted the Board to reconsider its positions and redefine its standards, for a start, in cases in which claimants have been classified PPD. After claimant was injured in working for the employer at a construction site in New York and applied for benefits, a dispute arose as to whether his accident was covered by NJMIC's policy.
A Law Judge determined that the policy did cover the accident as New York was not included in a list of states specifically excluded from coverage on the declarations page submitted by NJMIC, and an attempt by NJMIC to amend the policy to add New York to this list about a month before claimant's accident was ineffective: NJMIC argued that claimant's accident was excluded from coverage under the "limited other states' insurance endorsement " that confined the policy's New York coverage to temporarily assigned New Jersey employees.
However, no such provision was included in the endorsements that NJMIC supplied; further, despite NJMIC's claim that the limitation was part of the policy's "Other States Insurance" provision, that section of the declarations page merely stated that "Part Three of the policy applies to" covered states — without describing Part Three's contents or mentioning the conditions that it purportedly contains — and Part Three itself was not provided. Claimant's counsel, whose client lives in and filed his claim in Brooklyn, sent a letter to the Board requesting that all future hearings related to the claim be held at the hearing location in the City of White Plains, Westchester County.
Relying on a policy statement from the Board Chair regarding requests for venue changes, a Law Judge denied the application, affirmed by a Board panel which added the penalty. Claimant's sole contention is that the Board's decision must be rescinded in its entirety because the policy statement was not properly promulgated.
Inasmuch as claimant did not raise this issue before the Board, the Court ruled that it was not preserved for our review. On December 19, 20, the 3rd A. The full background of this matter is set forth in a previous decision of this Court AD3d . In April , while the appeal was pending, but prior to the filing of the record and briefs, the Board issued a new decision that "amends and supersedes" the November decision — reaching the same ultimate conclusion, but upon a distinctly different analysis.
Despite the timing, this Court was at no point informed of the amended decision and, therefore, upon discovering its existence, requested further briefing of the issues posed by these unusual procedural circumstances AD3d at Supplemental briefs were thereafter timely submitted by the Board and the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, but no brief was submitted on behalf of claimant. Nonetheless, the amended decision, which by its terms superseded the initial decision, renders the present appeal moot.
Claimant, sitting in a district office waiting room, was injured when a Board employee, in reaction to the news of his grandmother's death, went over to the waiting area and punched a wooden bench that was in front of the claimant, causing it to fall on the claimant.
In affirming the lower Court, the 3rd A. However, the defendant is not vicariously liable for the security guard's conduct because the evidence at trial established that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the defendant's business at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the security guard's conduct was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
The Appellate Court reversed, finding that the record does not disclose whether Gullo has filed a claim with the Board. On March 17, , decedent, a tractor trailer operator employed by Yellow Roadway Corporation, crashed his tractor trailer into a toll booth and sustained critical injuries.
At some point either before or after the accident, decedent suffered a massive stroke and died two days later. After Claimant, his widow, filed for workers' comp, the employer filed a C-7 controverting the claim on the basis of, among other things, whether it was premised on an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
A Law Judge finding that the emp Stevenson v Yellow Roadway loyer had not timely controverted the claim, barred the challenge. In Balbuena v IDR Realty, LLC 6 NY3d ,  , we held that an injured employee's status as an undocumented alien does not preclude recovery of lost wages in a personal injury action against a landowner under the state's Labor Law. This appeal asks us to look at the other side of the coin and decide if an employer's statutory rights under the Workers' Compensation Law are extinguished merely because its injured employee is an undocumented alien; specifically, whether the employer may still invoke section 11's shield against third-party claims for common-law contribution and indemnification.
Essentially, the Lema brothers were injured while employed by Microtech who had a demolition contract with the Hospital. The brothers made claims for and received workers' compensation benefits, which Microtech's insurance carrier paid. Additionally, by complaint dated August 8, , the Lemas sued the hospital for violations of the Labor Law. This is exactly the kind of lawsuit that Balbuena permits to go forward, at least absent proof that the undocumented alien tendered false work authorization documents to gain employment see Balbuena, 6 NY3d at According to the hospital's attorney, the parties entered into a high-low agreement at the ensuing damages trial, and after the verdict, the judgment was paid in keeping with this arrangement.
The hospital brought this action for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification against Microtech to recover any damages it incurred in the Labor Law litigation with the Lemas. If the illegality of the employment contract does not defeat the employee's rights under an otherwise applicable state statute, as was the case in Balbuena, it is]not clear why it would nonetheless annul the employer's statutory rights.
Microtech took the position that section 11 barred the hospital's action because documentary evidence the bill of particulars in the underlying personal injury lawsuit and an unsigned purchase order postdating the accident showed that the Lemas did not suffer a grave injury and that Microtech did not enter into the requisite written contract providing for contribution or indemnification[ Under New York's workers' compensation scheme, an employee receives medical benefits and compensation for workplace injuries, regardless of fault, paid for by the employer.
In exchange for this certain and swift remedy, the employee gives up the right to sue the employer for personal injuries. Over time, however, this trade-off was seriously compromised by our decision in Dole v Dow 30 NY2d .
Dole allowed "a primary defendant in an action [to] seek unlimited contribution or indemnification from an employer as a third party. As amended by the legislature in , then, section 11 now explicitly limits an employer's exposure to third party liability to those situations where the employee suffers a grave injury, or the employer enters into a written contract of contribution or indemnification with the third party id. As this case is presented to us, the Lemas did not suffer grave injuries, there was no preexisting agreement for contractual contribution or indemnification and the hospital does not contend that IRCA preempts section 11; therefore, Microtech is entitled to the safe harbor in section After claimant's husband hereinafter decedent was murdered at work, work comp benefits were established in In the carrier sought to have the case reopened, pointing to evidence that decedent's murder was unconnected with his employment, citing a press release from the United States Attorney's Office, stating that decedent was executed by gang members.
The Court agreed with the Board that the employer allegedly did not ascertain the facts surrounding decedent's death until several months before its application for reopening and did not explain the delay in bringing this information to the Board's attention. Based on work related injuries claimant was awarded workers comp. Based on testimony from the claimant and doctors from the Fund and the carrier, a Law Judge found that the carrier was not entitled to reimbursement.
Not only did the Court find that the Board applied the proper legal standard, the carrier failed to prove that claimant's preexisting osteoarthritis of the hips hindered or was likely to hinder her employment. Also, the record did not reflect that claimant was experiencing pain due to her arthritic hip condition, that she missed any time from work, or that she was under any restrictions prior to her workplace accident. Singer of counsel to the Special Funds Conservation Committee respondent.
With the claimant acting as a spotter, the suspect was shot and subsequently died. A Law Judge denied the claim, finding that the events giving rise to claimant's injury were part of his job description and responsibilities as a peace officer. For a mental injury premised on work-related stress to be compensable, " the stress must be greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment. Whether the stress experienced by a claimant is more than that normally encountered is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its finding will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence.
When the claimant, thereafter submitted medical reports for neck and back injuries, a Law Judge concluded that claimant did not sustain those additional injuries. Thus, the Court found that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. Claimant suffered catastrophic injuries, leaving her in a persistent vegetative state, when the employer-sponsored van in which she was traveling from her place of work back to her home crashed.
The Court also noted that, in light of claimant's ongoing disability, it was not improper for the Board to have relied upon the hearsay testimony of claimant's mother. The Law Judge noted that he found "accident and notice based upon the uncontroverted testimony" of claimant. The Court addressed each of the numerous breaches that the Landlord asserted, holding that they had been cured: However, the Landlord identified one potential incurable breach -- the Tenant's failure to obtain the required occurrence-based policies: However, the Tenant argued that this problem has been cured because: While the Court ruled that these breeches and subsequent corrections were not sufficient to warrant termination of the lease, it wrote: First, potential claims are not necessarily time barred due to the possibility that injuries have yet to be discovered.
Given that the Tenant's subtenant is a dental practice, uses x-ray machines, it is possible that a former employee might have been exposed to radiation that has yet to manifest into an illness.
Left unaddressed is what the Court would have done had the Tenant not had such a WC policy in place. Would have eviction followed or would the Tenant have be given a grace period in which to correct said deficiency? The Board found the claimant's account of the accident to be credible as well as the opinions of two physicians who had examined claimant.
The physicians who offered those opinions relied, in part, on claimant's account of the accident, which the Board found to be credible. Claimant, employed in , sought medical treatment in January for shortness of breath, which resulted in his being taken out of work from May 14, through August 11, He then successfully filed a workers comp claim, citing illness to his lungs and sinuses as the result of breathing in grinding dust, cardboard dust, and fumes caused by heat-shrinking polyethylene.
The Board determined he had a causally related occupational airway disease and awarded benefits for the lost time from work. Claimant has continued working since August The employer contended that the Board's determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it was based upon speculative medical opinion. In disagreeing, the Court noted that: Claimant presented the medical reports and testimony of [two doctors who] both diagnosed claimant as suffering from respiratory disease related to claimant's work-related exposure to cardboard dust and fumes from shrink wrapping polyethylene.
Further, an industrial hygienist testified that the shrink-wrapping process used by the employer would emit respiratory irritants, and claimant's supervisor testified that claimant worked around the shrink wrapping machine on a daily basis and there was cardboard dust in his work area.
Rather than purchasing an annuity, it is alleged that Durst made regular monthly payments directly to Rodriguez for a while, then occasionally, then none at all.
At that time, Rodriguez retained new counsel who requested a full and accurate accounting of all settlement funds. Despite several subpoenas requesting the accounting, Durst did not comply. The matter has been in litigation for years and could perhaps have been so for some time to come, but NYSIF decided to settle and indemnity Amherst for a sum somewhat less than the judgment plus interest that Amherst had demanded.
After claimant suffered injuries on May 1, , his claim was established for occupational disease. Thereafter, claimant continued to work while experiencing back problems and was diagnosed with severe biforaminal stenosis. Classified as partially disabled, he was treated with a series of epidural injections. The Court determined that because, in this case, the statutory time periods had been met, the shifting of liability would occur only if the case had been ' truly closed' , which is a factual issue to be resolved by the Board by evaluating if any further proceedings related to the payment of compensation were contemplated at the time that the case was closed, not whether they were actually planned.
The Board's decision in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Certainly, the submission of additional medical evidence was not contemplated at that time.
A contrary result is not compelled by the subsequent change in claimant's medical condition and his need to have further surgery following the April 27, order.
The ultimate decision of the Workers' Compensation Board to excuse the untimeliness of that claim was not binding on respondent and did not preclude denial of his retirement application.
Thus, an award of reimbursement for the payment of the accrued sick leave, coupled with the permanent benefit of the reduced sick leave credits, would result in a disproportionate benefit to the employers and a net detriment to the employees. Rather, here, the denial of reimbursement for payments related to personal leave credits would result in claimant receiving both full wages and compensation benefits for the time in question. Such a result is disfavored and requires that reimbursement be granted to the employer.
Klotz of counsel to the State Insurance Fund, for appellants. Week Issue 1 Contact The Insider at: Court of Appeals which hears appeals on decisions made by the Third as well as motions accepted or denied by the Court of Appeals and transcripts of hearings before the Court of Appeals. Self-Insured Trusts The Court of Appeals, on October 23, , accepted a motion to allow additional time for presentation of papers on this case.
Decisions on this page go back to January To search other years, click on the date: On January 25, , while performing maintenance duties, claimant fell from a ladder, injuring his back, left hip, left leg and ankle.
His claim was established for injuries to his left leg and back after which claimant underwent extensive medical treatment for these injuries. The March 1, MRI revealed some disc bulges and herniations in claimant's cervical spine which, for the first time, were mentioned in the medical notes, suggesting that they may be the cause of his lower back pain.
The physician then filed a request for authorization for surgery that was denied based on a contrary report by another orthopedist. The claimant asserted that the carrier's payment of medical expenses that included a CT scan of his cervical spine immediately after the accident constituted an advance payment of compensation.
The decision determined that, when claimant was taken to the hospital immediately following his fall, a number of diagnostic tests were performed to assess the severity of his many injuries, including a CT scan of the head. These tests disclosed that his primary injuries were a fractured femur and lumbar disc, and they did not reveal any abnormalities in his cervical spine. Significantly, the course of claimant's continuing medical treatment during the ensuing two years focused on these injuries, not on any problems with claimant's neck.
Under these circumstances, it could not be inferred that the carrier's payment of medical expenses related to the CT scan constituted an acknowledgment of liability for injuries to claimant's neck. The Court wrote 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.
Claimant also filed a claim in for bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome CTS , later established as an occupational disease. The Board determined that claimant was entitled to be paid the full SLU award i. In August claimant took a leave of absence, then ceased working entirely after complaints he made to his employer over sales commissions went unresolved.
In September , claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging that the work-related stress from "harassment on [the] job" caused him to develop anxiety and depression.
In November , a Law Judge disallowed the claim finding that, despite 10 years having passed since commencement of the case, claimant had failed to provide prima facie evidence with regard to the employer's alleged misconduct nor did he indicate how it caused or contributed to his psychological injury. This time the Board panel affirmed on the basis that claimant failed to show that the stressors he experienced were any greater that those experienced by similarly situated workers in the normal work environment.
The claimant testified that, as a result of his dispute with the employer, he suffered debilitating depression that resulted in his treating psychologist recommending ultimately, his inability to return to work.