Claim of Pietrocola v. Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Pietrocola v. Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc.

177 A.D.2d 776, 576 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14348

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 776 (Claim of Pietrocola v. Colony Liquor Distributors, 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 Pietrocola v. Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc., 177 A.D.2d 776, 576 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 15, 1989 and September 19, 1990, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s case had been improperly closed.

Whether a case has been "closed” for purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a is a question of fact (see, Matter of Scalesse v Printing Adv. Corp., 30 NY2d 234, 237). The record here discloses that the case was first reopened within seven years of the date of the accident; thus the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier continued to be responsible at that point for claimant’s medical bills (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1]). However, while the case had specifically been reopened to determine the question of whether surgery was necessary, it was closed without resolving that issue. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Workers’ Compensation Board that such a closing was not a true closing because of a failure to resolve the surgery issue was proper (see, Matter of Gyory v Fairchild Indus., 151 AD2d 956, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 945), and because the initial reopening was within the seven-year time period, liability remained with the carrier (see, supra).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., [777]*777concur. Ordered that the decision and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeals from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 15, 1989 and September 19, 1990, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant’s case had been improperly closed.

Whether a case has been "closed” for purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a is a question of fact (see, Matter of Scalesse v Printing Adv. Corp., 30 NY2d 234, 237). The record here discloses that the case was first reopened within seven years of the date of the accident; thus the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier continued to be responsible at that point for claimant’s medical bills (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1]). However, while the case had specifically been reopened to determine the question of whether surgery was necessary, it was closed without resolving that issue. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Workers’ Compensation Board that such a closing was not a true closing because of a failure to resolve the surgery issue was proper (see, Matter of Gyory v Fairchild Indus., 151 AD2d 956, appeal dismissed 74 NY2d 945), and because the initial reopening was within the seven-year time period, liability remained with the carrier (see, supra).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., [777]*777concur. Ordered that the decision and amended decision are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 776, 576 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-pietrocola-v-colony-liquor-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack