Maqsood v. Mcroberts Protective Agency

Citation79 A.D.3d 1547,914 N.Y.S.2d 351
PartiesIn the Matter of the Claim of Khawar MAQSOOD, Appellant, v. McROBERTS PROTECTIVE AGENCY et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Decision Date30 December 2010
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
914 N.Y.S.2d 351
79 A.D.3d 1547


In the Matter of the Claim of Khawar MAQSOOD, Appellant,
v.
McROBERTS PROTECTIVE AGENCY et al., Respondents.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.


Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Dec. 30, 2010.

914 N.Y.S.2d 351

Khawar Maqsood, New York City, appellant pro se.

Foley, Smit, O'Boyle & Weisman, New York City (Mark Kolber of counsel), for McRoberts Protective Agency and another, respondents.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, MALONE JR., STEIN and GARRY, JJ.

CARDONA, P.J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed February 4, 2010, which denied claimant's application for reconsideration or full Board review.

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits in July 2004, one month after being punched in the chest during the course of his employment as a security guard. Following hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, finding that there was no medical evidence to support a causal relationship between claimant's work and his alleged cardiac condition. The Workers' Compensation Board, by decision filed June 25, 2008, affirmed that determination. Thereafter, the Board denied claimant's subsequent application for full Board review and/or reconsideration, prompting this appeal.

The merits of the Board's June 25, 2008 decision are not properly before us inasmuch as claimant appealed only from the Board's denial of his request for full Board review and/or reconsideration ( see Matter of Cali v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 886 N.Y.S.2d 248 [2009] ). Thus, "our analysis is confined to whether such denial was an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious" (

Matter of Yarleque v. Sally Lou, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 1294, 1294, 901 N.Y.S.2d 737 [2010], lv. dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 770, 906 N.Y.S.2d 815, 933 N.E.2d 214 [2010] ). In that regard, claimant did not demonstrate a material change in his condition or present evidence that was previously unavailable; moreover, the record reveals that the Board fully considered all of the relevant issues in its initial decision ( see Matter of D'Errico v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, 65 A.D.3d 795, 796, 883 N.Y.S.2d 828 [2009], appeal dismissed 13 N.Y.3d 899, 895 N.Y.S.2d 288, 922 N.E.2d 874 [2009]; Matter of Wariner v. Associated Press, 12 A.D.3d 863, 864, 784 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2004] ). Accordingly, the Board's decision denying full Board review and/or reconsideration will not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Mazzaferro v. Fast Track Structures, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 16, 2013
    ...v. Stone & Webster Constr. Servs., 91 A.D.3d 1263, 1263–1264, 936 N.Y.S.2d 795 [2012];Matter of Maqsood v. McRoberts Protective Agency, 79 A.D.3d 1547, 1547, 914 N.Y.S.2d 351 [2010],lv. dismissed16 N.Y.3d 871, 923 N.Y.S.2d 407, 947 N.E.2d 1185 [2011] ). Accordingly, our analysis is limited ......
  • In the Matter of The Claim of Michael Dipippo v. Signs
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 6, 2011
    ...Board review, the merits of the underlying decision are not properly before us ( see Matter of Maqsood v. McRoberts Protective Agency, 79 A.D.3d 1547, 1547, 914 N.Y.S.2d 351 [2010], lv. dismissed 16 N.Y.3d 871, 923 N.Y.S.2d 407, 947 N.E.2d 1185 [2011]; Matter of Marks v. Evergreen Country C......
  • Capalbo v. Stone & Webster Constr. Servs.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 26, 2012
    ...of Dipippo v. Accurate Signs & Awnings, 88 A.D.3d 1044, 1045, 930 N.Y.S.2d 100 [2011]; Matter of Maqsood v. McRoberts Protective Agency, 79 A.D.3d 1547, 1547, 914 N.Y.S.2d 351 [2010], lv. dismissed 16 N.Y.3d 871, 923 N.Y.S.2d 407, 947 N.E.2d 1185 [2011] ). Our analysis is therefore limited ......
  • Visic v. O'Nero & Sons Constr. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 21, 2012
    ...of Capalbo v. Stone & Webster Constr. Servs., 91 A.D.3d at 1264, 936 N.Y.S.2d 795;Matter of Maqsood v. McRoberts Protective Agency, 79 A.D.3d 1547, 914 N.Y.S.2d 351 [2010],lv. dismissed16 N.Y.3d 871, 923 N.Y.S.2d 407, 947 N.E.2d 1185 [2011] ). Here, the Board's determination as to claimant'......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT