Claim of Clements v. Oneida Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Clements v. Oneida Ltd.

200 A.D.2d 835, 606 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 13, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 835 (Claim of Clements v. Oneida Ltd.) 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 Clements v. Oneida Ltd., 200 A.D.2d 835, 606 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 15, 1992, which ruled that claimant suffered no serious facial disfigurement as a result of her accident.

The question of whether claimant suffered a serious facial disfigurement within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (t) was one of fact for the Board to resolve. The record in this case provides substantial evidence for the Board’s decision rejecting claimant’s contention that she fell within the ambit of the statute. A medical examination revealed that she was undergoing dental care for her injury and that she was suffering no facial disfigurement. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and rejected as unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 15, 1992, which ruled that claimant suffered no serious facial disfigurement as a result of her accident.

The question of whether claimant suffered a serious facial disfigurement within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (t) was one of fact for the Board to resolve. The record in this case provides substantial evidence for the Board’s decision rejecting claimant’s contention that she fell within the ambit of the statute. A medical examination revealed that she was undergoing dental care for her injury and that she was suffering no facial disfigurement. Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and rejected as unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 835, 606 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-clements-v-oneida-ltd-nyappdiv-1994.