Claim of Downer v. Lawrence Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Downer v. Lawrence Hospital

71 A.D.2d 736, 419 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947

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

DecidedJuly 19, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 736 (Claim of Downer v. Lawrence Hospital) 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 Downer v. Lawrence Hospital, 71 A.D.2d 736, 419 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 14, 1977, which affirmed a referee’s decision basing the amount of compensation awarded to claimant on a finding that she voluntarily limited her participation in the labor market. The board found: "based on the claimant’s testimony that she occasionally worked four days, but she only wanted to work three days, that the claimant voluntarily limited her participation in the labor market, therefore, Subdivision 3 of Section 14 does not apply in this case.” There is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the board (Matter of Pfeffer v Parkside Caterers, 42 NY2d 59, 60-61; Matter of Henry v Pittman Co., 60 AD2d 733; Matter of Derion v Gilford Mfg. Co., 282 App Div 788). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll,

JJ., concur.

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 December 14, 1977, which affirmed a referee’s decision basing the amount of compensation awarded to claimant on a finding that she voluntarily limited her participation in the labor market. The board found: "based on the claimant’s testimony that she occasionally worked four days, but she only wanted to work three days, that the claimant voluntarily limited her participation in the labor market, therefore, Subdivision 3 of Section 14 does not apply in this case.” There is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the board (Matter of Pfeffer v Parkside Caterers, 42 NY2d 59, 60-61; Matter of Henry v Pittman Co., 60 AD2d 733; Matter of Derion v Gilford Mfg. Co., 282 App Div 788). Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll,

JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 736, 419 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-downer-v-lawrence-hospital-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack