Scalo v. C.D. Perry & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 December 2013 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of Andrew SCALO, Respondent, v. C.D. PERRY & SONS, INC., et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Miliano, 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 (Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, SPAIN and EGAN JR., JJ.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed September 17, 2012, which denied the request of the employer and its workers' compensation carrierfor reconsideration and/or full Board review.
Claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits based upon a back injury he sustained while working for the employer in July 2010. The employer controverted the claim asserting that claimant's injury was not the result of a work-related accident and that any such injury would be subject to apportionment. Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found that claimant was disabled due to a work-related injury and awarded benefits without apportionment. On administrative appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The subsequent application by the employer and its workers' compensation carrier for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied and this appeal ensued.
Applications for Board review are to be considered by a panel of at least three members and may not be decided by the chair, or any other single member of the Board, alone ( seeWorkers' Compensation Law §§ 23, 142[2]; Matter of Drummond v. Desmond, 295 A.D.2d 711, 713, 744 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2002], lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 615, 752 N.Y.S.2d 1, 781 N.E.2d 913 [2002]; Matter of Greene v. Sproat, 18 A.D.2d 420, 421–422, 239 N.Y.S.2d 996 [1963], lv. denied13 N.Y.2d 596, 243 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 193 N.E.2d 644 [1963] ). The record before us provides no indication that the application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was considered by a three-member panel. Rather, the decision appears to have been made solely by the chair “on behalf of the Board.” Accordingly, this matter must be remitted to the Board for proper consideration of the application by a panel of the Board consisting of not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Perry v. Surplus
-
People v. Cook
...and his failure to take responsibility for his actions, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a [977 N.Y.S.2d 771]reduction in the interest of justice ( see People v. Simmons, 103 A.D.3d 1027, 1031, 960 N.Y.S.2d 527 [2013], lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1009, 971 N.......
-
Scalo v. C.D. Perry & Sons, Inc.
...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. Ina......
-
Lleshi v. Dag Hammarskjold Tower
...that application for full Board review as set forth in a decision filed June 23, 2014 (cf. Matter of Scalo v. C.D. Perry & Sons, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 1077, 977 N.Y.S.2d 771 [2013] ).ORDERED that the decision filed May 30, 2012 is affirmed, without costs.ORDERED that the appeal from the decision......