Scalo v. C.D. Perry & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 520111 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05559,129 A.D.3d 1431,12 N.Y.S.3d 373 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew SCALO, Respondent, v. C.D. PERRY & SONS, INC., et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
129 A.D.3d 1431
12 N.Y.S.3d 373
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05559
In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew SCALO, Respondent
v.
C.D. PERRY & SONS, INC., et al., Appellants.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
520111
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
June 25, 2015.
William O'Brien, State Insurance Fund, Albany (Edward Obertubbesing of counsel), for appellants.
James Trauring & Associates, Schenectady (James A. Trauring of counsel), for Andrew Scalo, respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Donya Fernandez of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Before: GARRY, J.P., ROSE, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
Opinion
ROSE, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed February 10, 2014, which denied the request of the employer
and its workers' compensation carrier for reconsideration and/or full Board review.
Claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after he injured his back while working for the employer. The employer controverted the claim, arguing that the injury was not work-related or, in the alternative, that the injury is subject to apportionment. Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim and awarded benefits without apportionment, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The application was denied, but we reversed on the ground that such applications must be considered by a panel of at least three members of the Board (112 A.D.3d 1077, 977 N.Y.S.2d 771 [2013] ). Upon remittal, a three-person panel of the Board denied the application, and the employer appeals.
We affirm. Inasmuch as only the Board's decision denying reconsideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Annucci
...[1987], cert. denied 488 U.S. 879, 109 S.Ct. 196, 102 L.Ed.2d 166 [1988] ; see Matter of Defeo v. New York State Dept. of Correctional 12 N.Y.S.3d 373Servs., 56 A.D.3d 886, 887, 867 N.Y.S.2d 242 [2008] ). Here, the denial of petitioner's application was based upon his history, specifically ......
-
Fuller-Astarita v. ABA Transp. Holding Co.
...70 N.Y.S.3d 400 [2018], appeal dismissed 32 N.Y.3d 1012, 86 N.Y.S.3d 420, 111 N.E.3d 314 [2018] ; Matter of Scalo v. C.D. Perry & Sons, 129 A.D.3d 1431, 1432, 12 N.Y.S.3d 373 [2015] ; Matter of Bolden [Commissioner of Labor], 65 A.D.3d 727, 728, 884 N.Y.S.2d 280 [2009] ). 112 N.Y.S.3d 814 M......
- Jones v. Prack