Claim of Ortiz v. Martin Viette Nurseries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Ortiz v. Martin Viette Nurseries, Inc.

82 A.D.3d 1480, 918 N.Y.2d 759

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1480 (Claim of Ortiz v. Martin Viette Nurseries, Inc.) 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 Ortiz v. Martin Viette Nurseries, Inc., 82 A.D.3d 1480, 918 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Spain, J.P.

Claimant suffered a work-related injury and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits for the time period of September 3, 2008 until September 22, 2008. Further benefits were held in abeyance and the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier subsequently submitted an independent medical examination report and deposition testimony of its medical expert, Sanford Wert, in which he opined that claimant had no further causally related disability. Following a hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) denied claimant’s request to preclude consideration of Wert’s report and testimony and determined that claimant had no further causally related disability. On review, the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, finding that Wert’s report and testimony should be precluded from consideration as the report did not comply with the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 and 12 NYCRR 300.2. The Board restored the matter to the calendar for a determination of whether claimant suffers from a further causally related disability, without consideration of Wert’s report or testimony. The carrier now appeals.

The Board’s decision on appeal — which rescinded the WCLJ’s original decision and remanded the matter to the WCLJ for a new determination on the issues — is interlocutory in nature and does not dispose of all the substantive issues nor reach legal threshold issues which may be determinative of the claim. Accordingly, it is not properly the subject of an appeal to this Court (see Matter of Carlineo v Snelling & Snelling, LLC, 73 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2010]; Matter of Monzon v Sam Bernardi Constr., Inc., 47 AD3d 977, 978 [2008]). Rather, “piecemeal review of issues in workers’ compensation cases should be avoided” (Matter of Sawyer v Orange Motors, 24 AD3d 1117, 1117-1118 [2005]). Inasmuch as this nonfinal decision is reviewable upon an appeal of the Board’s final determination (see Mat[1481]*1481ter of Ogbuagu v Ngbadi, 61 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2009]; Matter of Wilson v Roselli Moving & Stor. Corp., 37 AD3d 959 [2007]), this appeal must be dismissed.

Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., 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

Spain, J.P.

Claimant suffered a work-related injury and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits for the time period of September 3, 2008 until September 22, 2008. Further benefits were held in abeyance and the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier subsequently submitted an independent medical examination report and deposition testimony of its medical expert, Sanford Wert, in which he opined that claimant had no further causally related disability. Following a hearing, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) denied claimant’s request to preclude consideration of Wert’s report and testimony and determined that claimant had no further causally related disability. On review, the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded the WCLJ’s decision, finding that Wert’s report and testimony should be precluded from consideration as the report did not comply with the requirements of Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 and 12 NYCRR 300.2. The Board restored the matter to the calendar for a determination of whether claimant suffers from a further causally related disability, without consideration of Wert’s report or testimony. The carrier now appeals.

The Board’s decision on appeal — which rescinded the WCLJ’s original decision and remanded the matter to the WCLJ for a new determination on the issues — is interlocutory in nature and does not dispose of all the substantive issues nor reach legal threshold issues which may be determinative of the claim. Accordingly, it is not properly the subject of an appeal to this Court (see Matter of Carlineo v Snelling & Snelling, LLC, 73 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2010]; Matter of Monzon v Sam Bernardi Constr., Inc., 47 AD3d 977, 978 [2008]). Rather, “piecemeal review of issues in workers’ compensation cases should be avoided” (Matter of Sawyer v Orange Motors, 24 AD3d 1117, 1117-1118 [2005]). Inasmuch as this nonfinal decision is reviewable upon an appeal of the Board’s final determination (see Mat[1481]*1481ter of Ogbuagu v Ngbadi, 61 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2009]; Matter of Wilson v Roselli Moving & Stor. Corp., 37 AD3d 959 [2007]), this appeal must be dismissed.

Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1480, 918 N.Y.2d 759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-ortiz-v-martin-viette-nurseries-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack