Jaindl v. Robert Green Chev-Olds, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 May 2013 |
| Citation | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03896,106 A.D.3d 1417,965 N.Y.S.2d 735 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of Michael A. JAINDL, Respondent, v. ROBERT GREEN CHEV–OLDS, INC., et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Miliano, State Insurance Fund, Endicott (William R. Hartman of counsel), for appellants.
Mark Lewis Schulman, Monticello, for Michael A. Jaindl, respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Before: STEIN, J.P., SPAIN, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
EGAN JR., J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed November 30, 2011, which ruled that certain evidence was not admissible to support a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a.
In 1995, claimant, a mechanic, sustained a work-related injury to his lower back and right leg while installing a plow frame onto a truck. Claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits and, in 1999, was found to be permanently partially disabled. As part of its efforts to assess claimant's ongoing entitlement to benefits, the employer's workers' compensation carrier periodically sent work activity report forms (commonly known as WA–1 forms) to claimant requesting information regarding his employment status. Upon claimant's alleged failure to disclose certain employment on the WA–1 forms, the carrier asserted a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a. Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found that because the WA–1 forms had not been contemporaneously sent to claimant's attorney of record, they were—pursuant to a recent decision of the Workers' Compensation Board—inadmissible. The carrier sought review and the Board affirmed, prompting this appeal.
Given that the Board's decision was interlocutory and neither disposed of all substantive issues nor addressed a dispositive legal issue, the decision is not appealable ( see Matter of Hollis v. Morelli Masons, Inc., 98 A.D.3d 1196, 1197, 950 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2012];Matter of Fetter v. Verizon, 94 A.D.3d 1277, 1278, 942 N.Y.S.2d 281 [2012] ). As we previously have noted, the piecemeal review of issues in workers' compensation cases should be avoided, and the evidentiary ruling at issue here is more appropriately reviewed upon an appeal from the Board's final decision ( see *736Matter of Fetter v. Verizon, 94 A.D.3d at 1278, 942 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Filer v. Adams
...106 A.D.3d 1417966 N.Y.S.2d 5532013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03897Andrea FILER et al., Respondents,v.Megan ADAMS, Appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.May 30, [966 N.Y.S.2d 555]Pemberton & Briggs, Schenectady (Paul Briggs of counsel), for appellant.Gerstenzang, O'Her......
-
Depascale v. Magazine Distribs., Inc.
...Inc., 82 A.D.3d 1480, 1480, 918 N.Y.S.2d 759 [2011] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Jaindl v. Robert Green Chev–Olds, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 1417, 1417, 965 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2013];Matter of Hosler v. Smallman, 106 A.D.3d 1218, 1219, 965 N.Y.S.2d 651 [2013] ). We will not conduct a piecemeal revie......
-
O'Connor v. SKF United States, Inc.
...of Bucci v. New York City Tr. Auth., 154 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 60 N.Y.S.3d 849 [2017] ; Matter of Jaindl v. Robert Green Chev–Olds, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 1417, 1417, 965 N.Y.S.2d 735 [2013] ). Because the nonfinal decision is reviewable upon an appeal from the Board's final decision, the appeal mus......