Claim of Hollis v. Marriott Hotel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Hollis v. Marriott Hotel

210 A.D.2d 714, 620 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12738

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 714 (Claim of Hollis v. Marriott Hotel) 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 Hollis v. Marriott Hotel, 210 A.D.2d 714, 620 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 2, 1993, which ruled that claimant’s discharge was not in retaliation for having filed a compensation claim.

Claimant suffered a compensable injury while working for the employer and subsequently did not report for work while she was convalescing. Testimony established that the employer was unable to contact claimant due to her failure to inform the employer of her new address. After receiving no answer from claimant to correspondence sent by the employer concerning her return to work, her employment was terminated. At the time of her termination, claimant was unable to perform her usual work duties. We find that these facts constitute substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that there was no evidence of discrimination within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White 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 June 2, 1993, which ruled that claimant’s discharge was not in retaliation for having filed a compensation claim.

Claimant suffered a compensable injury while working for the employer and subsequently did not report for work while she was convalescing. Testimony established that the employer was unable to contact claimant due to her failure to inform the employer of her new address. After receiving no answer from claimant to correspondence sent by the employer concerning her return to work, her employment was terminated. At the time of her termination, claimant was unable to perform her usual work duties. We find that these facts constitute substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that there was no evidence of discrimination within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 714, 620 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-hollis-v-marriott-hotel-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack