Claim of Bush v. Beltrone Construction

289 A.D.2d 722, 733 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 13, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 722 (Claim of Bush v. Beltrone Construction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Claim of Bush v. Beltrone Construction, 289 A.D.2d 722, 733 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Spain, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 29, 2000, which denied the application of the workers’ compensation carrier for full Board review of a decision directing it to continue paying claimant workers’ compensation benefits at a temporary total disability rate pending full development of the record.

During the course of his employment as a construction worker for the employer, claimant injured his back on June 24, 1994 and again on July 27, 1994; he sought medical treatment and eventually underwent surgery. In response to a claim made after the July 27, 1994 event, the employer’s workers’ compen[723]*723sation carrier commenced paying claimant $400 a week without waiting for an award of workers’ compensation benefits. Following a hearing in February 1998, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge issued a decision finding accident, notice and casual relationship, and awarded claimant benefits at a temporary total disability rate of $400 a week for lost time through February 10, 1998 and ordered the carrier to continue payments at that rate. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the temporary benefit award, denying the carrier’s requests to reduce payments from a temporary total disability rate to a temporary marked partial rate and to apportion the rate to reflect only that portion of claimant’s injury related to the July 27, 1994 incident. However, the Board continued the case for further development of the record on the issues of degree of disability, permanency and apportionment. The carrier’s subsequent application for full Board review was denied and the carrier now appeals.

“Appeals from Board decisions which neither decide all substantive issues nor involve a threshold legal issue are not permitted” (Matter of Taylor v Gold & Son, 105 AD2d 494, 494 [citation omitted]). Here, the carrier challenges the degree of claimant’s disability and apportionment, the very issues on which the Board withheld final resolution pending further development of the record. As the Board’s direction to continue payments pending full development of the record on those issues was interlocutory and did not involve a threshold legal issue, it is not appealable (see, Matter of Walker v Low & Son, 154 AD2d 853, 854 [holding Board’s direction to pay award pending final resolution of the issues of compensability and apportionment nonappealable]; see also, Matter of Harris v Grey Adv., 180 AD2d 879, 880; Matter of Donovan v Knickerbocker Warehousing Corp., 72 AD2d 870; Matter of Harris v Carborundum Co., 72 AD2d 869; cf., Matter of Byrne v Fall Fitting, 266 AD2d 684, 684-685).

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Claim of Fowler v. Crouse Community Center
101 A.D.3d 1568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Claim of McClam v. American Axle & Manufacturing
79 A.D.3d 1315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Claim of Rivers v. Blue Ridge Farms, Inc.
36 A.D.3d 1132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Claim of Reese v. Advanced Employment Concepts
15 A.D.3d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Claim of Malkin v. Love Taxi, Inc.
299 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Claim of Bathrick v. New York State Department of Transportation
298 A.D.2d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Claim of Montanaro v. C.H. Quay & Sons
293 A.D.2d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 722, 733 N.Y.S.2d 657, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-bush-v-beltrone-construction-nyappdiv-2001.