Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Claim of Krebs v. Town of Ithaca

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 18, 2002 · Spain

293 A.D.2d 883; 741 N.Y.S.2d 303; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Cox v. Suburban Propane, LP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Claim of Johnson v. Feinberg-Smith Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Bremner v. New Venture Gear (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Nye v. IBM Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Claim of Bruno v. Kelly Temp Service (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Claim of Montana v. Orion Bus Industries (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Claim of Hogan v. Hilltop Manor of Niskayuna (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Marchell v. Littman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Marchell v. Littman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Claim of Wilcox v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Claim of Peterson v. Faculty Student Ass'n (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Claim of Mandziara v. Lowe's Home Centers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Claim of Brown v. Harden Furniture (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Claim of Peck v. Village of Gouverneur (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Claim of Moore v. St. Peter's Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Claim of Cunningham v. Wessanen USA, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Claim of Cool v. TP Brake & Muffler, Inc. (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 May 23, 2000, which ruled, inter alia, that apportionment did not apply to claimant’s award of workers’ compensation benefits.

After undergoing a total right hip replacement to correct a degenerative arthritic condition, claimant returned to work in a supervisory capacity, with restrictions on lifting and operating heavy equipment. He worked for approximately one year without any problem until March 1996, when he sustained a twisting injury to his right hip in a work-related accident. As a result, he was found to have a permanent partial disability and, upon the advice of his doctor, he retired. Although there was medical evidence that claimant’s disability was causally related to the preexisting hip condition, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that apportionment did not apply to claimant’s award of reduced earnings from the disability. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appeal.

Apportionment in workers’ compensation cases is an issue of fact for the Board’s determination (see, Matter of Woods v Marriott Corp., 285 AD2d 906, 907). Where the prior condition was not the result of a compensable injury and the claimant is able *884to effectively perform his or her job despite the preexisting condition, apportionment is not warranted (see, Matter of Peziol v VAW of Am,., 245 AD2d 877; Matter of Kendle v Colonie Masonry Corp. of Albany, 199 AD2d 701, 702).

Here, the record supports the Board’s conclusion that, notwithstanding the limitations imposed upon claimant’s return to work after the hip replacement surgery, he was able to effectively perform his job for approximately one year despite the preexisting noncompensable condition, rendering apportionment inapplicable (see, Matter of Peziol v VAW of Am., supra; see also, Matter of Woods v Marriott Corp., supra). In these circumstances, the Board could rationally have concluded that, although claimant’s hip condition prior to the March 1996 injury constituted a “previous permanent physical impairment” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), it did not constitute a “previous disability” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (7). Apportionment applies only in cases where the prior condition constitutes “a disability in a compensation sense” (Matter of Carbonaro v Chinatown Sea Food, 55 AD2d 756, 757) and, therefore, the Board’s decision must be affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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