Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998

Claim of Knapp v. Empire Aluminum Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 17, 1998 · Spain

256 A.D.2d 811; 681 N.Y.S.2d 861; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13603

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Claim of Jansch v. Sagamore Children's Fund (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Claim of Bush v. Montgomery Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Claim of Hantz v. Brightman Agency (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Claim of Stevens v. MMR Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Claim of Pegoraro v. Tessy Plastics Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Claim of Pankiw v. Eastman Kodak Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Claim of Pankiw v. Eastman Kodak Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Claim of Dicob v. Amf Bowling, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Claim of Sidorovski v. New Venture Gear (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Claim of Washburn v. Bob Hooey Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Claim of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Claim of Stanford v. Lewis County Opportunities (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Claim of Granberry v. JCCA Edenwald, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Claim of Mackey v. Roofing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Claim of Carubia v. Colt Industries (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Claim of Jones v. HSBC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Spain, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 23, 1996, which discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability.

Claimant sustained a back injury in February 1985 for which he received workers’ compensation benefits until he returned to work several months later. Thereafter, in 1986, the Workers’ Compensation Board authorized continued symptomatic treatment and closed claimant’s case without determining the degree of his disability. The Board subsequently reopened the case in 1994 to consider the issue of permanency and, following a hearing, awarded claimant additional benefits based upon a finding that he suffered from a permanent partial disability. The Board further found that the closing of claimant’s case was not a true closing within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a and discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability. The employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier appeal.

Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant’s case was not officially closed for purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, we affirm. Whether a case has been officially closed so as to shift liability to the Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a is a question of fact for the Board and depends upon whether further proceedings are contemplated at the time of the closing (see, Matter of Kirschner v Rowe, Walsh Assocs., 144 AD2d 191, 192; Matter of McGarry v Capatano & Grow Constr. Co., 58 AD2d 372, 374, affd 44 NY2d 946). The record here reveals that although claimant’s treating physician had filed a report with the Board indicating that claimant suffered from a permanent partial disability, the Board closed the case without resolving the issue of permanency and did not refer claimant to a Board physician for examination until after the case was reopened. Since the closing in this case contemplated further proceedings to establish the degree of claimant’s disability, the record supports the Board’s conclusion that Workers’ Compensation Law *812§ 25-a was inapplicable (see generally, Matter of Pietrocola v Colony Liq. Distribs., 177 AD2d 776).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.