Category Archives: New York

New Board Panel Decision on Pre-Hearing Conference Statements

Lois Law Firm obtained a Board Panel Decision on May 11, 2018 affirming the law judge’s decision to disallow a claim on the substantive merits of the claim, but the Board also (for the first time) specifically ruled that the employer’s Pre-hearing Conference Statement was sufficient on its face to assert and maintain all defenses. In addition, the Board also determined that the PH-16.2, as submitted, was sufficient to permit the production of an employer witness that was not specifically requested in the PH-16.2.

Download the full decision here: Pabon v. Crown Energy (25 downloads)

Defenses to New York Workers’ Compensation Claims

Workers’ Compensation benefits are analogous to no fault benefits because the employee will be entitled to benefits regardless of whether the employee was negligent in causing the injury or death. By the same token, an employer’s negligence is not considered. Comparative negligence, contributory negligence, or the act of God doctrines are not applicable in determining entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits in New York. Pierce v. Young, 252 N.Y. 520 (1929).

There are some exclusions from compensation. Keep these possible defenses handy when analyzing claims. Continue reading Defenses to New York Workers’ Compensation Claims

Explainer: Who is NOT Covered by New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law?

Almost all workers in New York are covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law. of course, for every broad generalization like that one, there are exceptions. What are the exceptions to coverage requirements under New York’s law? Generally, see § 3 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Here’s a non-exclusive list of some of the most commonly-excepted employments in New York: Continue reading Explainer: Who is NOT Covered by New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law?

Explainer: Special Categories of Employment for New York Workers’ Compensation Coverage

Wrap-Up Policies

On large construction projects the main general contractor may obtain a workers’ compensation insurance policy to cover all workers on a the job site – this policy is called a “wrap-up” policy. A wrap-up policy has an expiration date that coincides with the planned completion date of the project.

All the subcontractors should be listed as policyholders on the wrap-up policy. The general contractor and the majority of the sub-contractors should each also have their own separate workers’ compensation insurance policy. Continue reading Explainer: Special Categories of Employment for New York Workers’ Compensation Coverage

Understanding the “Distinctive Feature of Employment” Requirement for Occupational Disease Claims In New York

Disability stemming from any disease within the course of employment may entitle the employee to compensation, if the disease is found to be occupational in nature. Di Nicola v. Crucible Steel, Inc., 83 A.D.2d 735, 736, 442 N.Y.S.2d 582, 584 (3d Dept. 1981); see also Rodriguez v. Atlantic Gummed Paper Corp., 61 A.D.2d 873, 402 N.Y.S.2d 238, 239 (3d Dept. 1978). To be considered an occupational disease, the disease must be the
“result of a distinctive feature of the kind of work performed by claimant and others similarly employed, not an ailment caused by the peculiar place in which the particular claimant happens to work … or caused by ordinary contact with a fellow employee ….”
Paider v. Park East Movers, 19 N.Y.2d 373, 380, 280 N.Y.S.2d 140, 144, 227 N.E.2d 40, 43 (1967) (citations omitted). In order to obtain workers’ compensation benefits based upon an occupational disease, the claimant must “establish a ‘recognizable link’ between his condition and a distinctive feature of his occupation.” Engler v UPS, 767 NYS2d 496, 498 [2003]. Therefore, the foundation of determining if a disability resulted from an occupational disease is whether a distinctive feature of employment caused the disability.

Two factors result in occupational diseases: exposure to toxins and repetitive activity. This article discusses both and then provides some practical takeaways for practictioners defending these claims. Continue reading Understanding the “Distinctive Feature of Employment” Requirement for Occupational Disease Claims In New York