In a post-2007 reform world, the percentage disability became more important for one major purpose: establishing a capped benefit system for nonscheduled awards. From a carrier perspective, this was a positive and a step in the right direction as the Board was finally placing limits on the number of weeks
Articles Discussing New York's Workers' Compensation Law.
On January 1, 2020, additional medical providers have been authorized to treat claimants under the New York State workers’ compensation system. Physicians, chiropractors, podiatrists, and psychologists are joined by physical therapists, occupational therapists, physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners, licensed clinical social workers, and acupuncturists as Board-authorized providers. Not all approved providers
Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) Section 15 outlines the schedules of compensation payable to the claimant upon a determination that the claimant is disabled—permanent total, temporary total, permanent partial, and temporary partial. Specifically, WCL Section 15(3)(w) pertains to claims of permanent partial disability that are not amenable to a schedule loss
Prior to hiring a minor (an employee who is under the age of 18), an employer has an obligation to obtain the minor’s employment certificate or permit issued in accordance with the education law (commonly referred to as “working papers”). Prior to the minor starting work, the employer must file
New York Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) dictates that an injured worker is entitled to reimbursement for certain expenses relating to an established compensable claim. WCL Section 13(a) provides that an employer is obligated to provide an injured employee with such medical, surgical, or other attendance or treatment as the nature
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court issued a published decision on August 24, 2016 confirming the right of workers’ compensation insurers to recover medical expenses from the proceeds of any recovery the worker obtains from a third-party tortfeasor under Section 40 of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act. The decision in Lambert v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America offers welcome clarity concerning reimbursement of medical payments under Section 40 (see No. A-1073-14T3, __ N.J. Super. __, __ (App. Div. 2016)).
The New York Workers’ Compensation Board has implemented a new procedure that changes the way carriers manage claims per Section 25(2)(a), which will affect both carriers and employers. The new procedure requires carriers to accept or controvert a claim “within 18 days after a disability or within 10 days after the employer has knowledge of the alleged accident, whichever is greater.”
Timely summaries of decisions from across New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania concerning workers’ compensation matters. It also provides the latest news regarding litigation, changes in interpretive language used by the courts, permanency determinations, and more.
Timely summaries of decisions from across New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey concerning workers’ compensation matters. It also provides the latest news regarding litigation, changes in interpretive language used by the courts, permanency determinations, and more.
Timely summaries of decisions from across New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey concerning workers’compensation matters. It also provides the latest news regarding litigation, changes in interpretive language used by the courts, permanency determinations, and more.
In the coming months, the Workers’ Compensation Board is phasing in its new eClaims system, which will greatly impact the manner in which carriers file denials on new claims. To help streamline the process and maintain all applicable defenses to new claims, the following is our recommended procedure for controverting claims.
In an extremely rare decision, the New York State Court of Appeals has granted reargument. In Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, the court granted reargument of its prior ruling that granted the defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiffs from litigating the issue of the injured plaintiff’s accident-related disability based upon a prior ruling by the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB).
In a recent decision with profound implications for defending workers’ compensation claims in New York, the Court of Appeals reversed the First Department and held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a plaintiff from litigating duration of disability in New York State Supreme Court when the plaintiff previously litigated the same issue to a full and final decision as a claimant in a corresponding matter before the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB).
In a rare twist, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent proposed changes to workers’ compensation in New York have earned praise from both the business side and the labor side.
In New York Workers’ Compensation Case No. 00427749, the claimant, a driver, sustained injuries to her back, neck, right shoulder, face, and right thumb when she was rear-ended by a van in 2004. In addition to underscoring the requirements a claimant must meet to be classified with a permanent total disability, the proceedings that ensued in this case provide carriers and employers with an important defense against claimants’ physicians who do not properly investigate the true capabilities and daily lives of claimants.