Yujuan Sheng v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 518653.
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Writing for the Court | McCARTHY, J. |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06738,131 A.D.3d 1283,16 N.Y.S.3d 92 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of YUJUAN SHENG, Appellant, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | 518653. |
| Decision Date | 03 September 2015 |
131 A.D.3d 1283
16 N.Y.S.3d 92
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06738
In the Matter of the Claim of YUJUAN SHENG, Appellant
v.
TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al., Respondents.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
518653.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Sept. 3, 2015.
Yujuan Sheng, Briarwood, appellant pro se.
Foley, Smit, O'Boyle & Weisman, Hauppauge (Theresa E. Wolinski of counsel), for Time Warner Cable, Inc. and another, respondents.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
Opinion
McCARTHY, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation
Board, filed February 28, 2014, which denied claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review.
Claimant sustained work-related injuries to her back and left hip in 2005 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Benefit payments stopped in 2007 when claimant returned to work. Her employment apparently ended in April 2008 and she subsequently raised the issues of permanency and reduced wages. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) awarded claimant additional benefits from April 11, 2008 to October 29, 2008, but found no further compensable lost time. By a decision filed September 25, 2013, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, and claimant applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review. That request was denied by the Board in a February 2014 decision, and claimant now appeals to this Court.
Inasmuch as claimant has appealed only from the Board's February 2014 decision denying her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review, the merits of the underlying decision are not before us (see Matter of Mazzaferro v. Fast Track Structures, Inc., 106 A.D.3d 1302, 1302, 964 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2013] ; Matter of McCorkle–Spaulding v. Lowe's, 95 A.D.3d 1513, 1514, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Kingston City Sch. Dist.
...obtaining wage replacement benefits is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Petrillo v. Comp USA, 131 A.D.3d at 1283, 16 N.Y.S.3d 624 ; Matter of Woods v. New York State Thruway Auth., 27 A.D.3d 933, 933, 810 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 716......
-
Martinez v. Kingston City Sch. Dist.
...obtaining wage replacement benefits is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Petrillo v. Comp USA, 131 A.D.3d at 1283, 16 N.Y.S.3d 624 ; Matter of Woods v. New York State Thruway Auth., 27 A.D.3d 933, 933, 810 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 716......