McGarry v. Catapano & Grow Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1978 |
| Citation | 380 N.E.2d 152,44 N.Y.2d 946,408 N.Y.S.2d 320 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 380 N.E.2d 152 Claim of Anthony McGARRY, Claimant, v. CATAPANO & GROW CONSTRUCTION CO. et al., Respondents, and Special Fund for Reopened Cases, Appellant. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent. |
The Workmen's Compensation Board considered this claim under a statute which provides that "testimony may be taken, either directly or through a referee and if an award is made it shall be against the special fund provided by this section" (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 25-a, subd. 1). The decision of the board, made following a hearing, that there had been no closing of the case and that liability was "that of the primary carrier, and not that of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases", was final as to all questions of fact (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 20), subject to judicial review only in the event there was no substantial evidence to support them (Matter of Bellini v. Great Amer. Ind. Co., 299 N.Y. 399, 403, 87 N.E.2d 426, 428; Matter of Dennison v. Peckham Rd. Corp., 295 N.Y. 457, 461-462, 68 N.E.2d 440, 442-443; Matter of Gilbert v. Happy Hill Farm, 23 A.D.2d 931, 258 N.Y.S.2d 877, mot. for lv. to app. den. 16 N.Y.2d 484, 211 N.E.2d 654). Initially, the issue as to whether there had been a closing of the case was factual and we agree with the part of the Appellate Division opinion stating that the determination of the board that there had been no closing was not supported by substantial evidence.
The ultimate legal issue is the correctness of the board's conclusion that the carrier's failure to file a C-8 form (provided for under section 300.23 of the General Rules and Procedure of the Workmen's Compensation Board, formerly rule 23) continued its liability. While generally the interpretation placed on a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be upheld if not irrational or unreasonable (cf. Matter of Union Free School Dist. v. Nyquist, 38 N.Y.2d 137, 142, 379 N.Y.S.2d 10, 13, 341 N.E.2d 532, 534), nevertheless the ultimate question of law is subject to review in the courts (Matter of McCarter v. La Rock, 240 N.Y. 282, 285, 148 N.E. 523, 524; Matter of Oddi v. Cabaret Hurricane, 278 App.Div. 261, 264, 105 N.Y.S.2d 4, 7). On that distinction, the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southland Corp. v. Abrams
...will be respected by the courts, unless it is found to be irrational or unreasonable. McGarry v. Catapano & Grow Construction Co., 44 N.Y.2d 946, 408 N.Y.S.2d 320, 380 N.E.2d 152 (1978). Where the question is one of pure statutory analysis, however, dependent only on an accurate apprehensio......
-
Kirschner v. Rowe, Walsh Associates
...action is contemplated (Matter of McGarry v. Capatano & Grow Constr. Co., 58 A.D.2d 372, 374, 396 N.Y.S.2d 901, affd. 44 N.Y.2d 946, 408 N.Y.S.2d 320, 380 N.E.2d 152). Whether a case has been closed is a question of fact for the Board which is subject to the substantial evidence standard of......
-
Knapp v. Empire Aluminum Industries
...192, 534 N.Y.S.2d 509; Matter of McGarry v. Capatano & Grow Constr. Co., 58 A.D.2d 372, 374, 396 N.Y.S.2d 901, affd. 44 N.Y.2d 946, 408 N.Y.S.2d 320, 380 N.E.2d 152). The record here reveals that although claimant's treating physician had filed a report with the Board indicating that claima......