Claim of Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, Inc.

16 A.D.3d 804, 790 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2415

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 804 (Claim of Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, 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 Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 804, 790 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 1, 2004, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

On this appeal from an amended Workers’ Compensation Board decision, we reject as unfounded each of claimant’s procedural arguments. First, the reconstituted three-member Board was authorized to issue an amended decision reversing itself (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 22, 123, 142 [2]; see also 12 NYCRR 300.1 [a]) and, in so doing, did not violate the principles espoused in Matter of Field Delivery Servs. (Roberts) (66 NY2d 516 [1985]; see generally Matter of Gullo v Southern Erie Clinical Servs., 258 AD2d 689, 691 [1999]). Next, although Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (4) (a) and 12 NYCRR 325-1.3 (b) (3) require a treating physician to submit progress reports of an injured worker’s continuing treatment on a routine basis (see also Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-k [3] [a]; § 13-Z [3] [a]; § 13-m [4] [a] [progress reports required by a treating podiatrist, chiropractor and psychologist, respectively]; 12 NYCRR 341.3 [b] [3]; 346.3 [b] [3]; 331.3 [b] [3] [same]; see generally Matter of Rothe v United Med. Assoc., 2 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2003]), no corollary statutory or regulatory provision exists for an independent medical examiner (compare Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a [4] [b], [d]; § 13-k [3] [b], [d]; § 13-Z [3] [b], [d]; § 13-m [4] [b], [d]; 12 NYCRR 300.2 [d] [3]; Workers’ Compensation Law § 137). Thus, claimant’s argument concern[805]*805ing the staleness of the medical reports of the independent medical examiner in this case is unpersuasive. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amended decision is affirmed, with costs.

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

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 1, 2004, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

On this appeal from an amended Workers’ Compensation Board decision, we reject as unfounded each of claimant’s procedural arguments. First, the reconstituted three-member Board was authorized to issue an amended decision reversing itself (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 22, 123, 142 [2]; see also 12 NYCRR 300.1 [a]) and, in so doing, did not violate the principles espoused in Matter of Field Delivery Servs. (Roberts) (66 NY2d 516 [1985]; see generally Matter of Gullo v Southern Erie Clinical Servs., 258 AD2d 689, 691 [1999]). Next, although Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a (4) (a) and 12 NYCRR 325-1.3 (b) (3) require a treating physician to submit progress reports of an injured worker’s continuing treatment on a routine basis (see also Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-k [3] [a]; § 13-Z [3] [a]; § 13-m [4] [a] [progress reports required by a treating podiatrist, chiropractor and psychologist, respectively]; 12 NYCRR 341.3 [b] [3]; 346.3 [b] [3]; 331.3 [b] [3] [same]; see generally Matter of Rothe v United Med. Assoc., 2 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2003]), no corollary statutory or regulatory provision exists for an independent medical examiner (compare Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a [4] [b], [d]; § 13-k [3] [b], [d]; § 13-Z [3] [b], [d]; § 13-m [4] [b], [d]; 12 NYCRR 300.2 [d] [3]; Workers’ Compensation Law § 137). Thus, claimant’s argument concern[805]*805ing the staleness of the medical reports of the independent medical examiner in this case is unpersuasive. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amended decision is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 804, 790 N.Y.S.2d 416, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-pace-v-concepts-in-wood-of-cny-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack