Claim of Pikcilingis v. Macy's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Pikcilingis v. Macy's

209 A.D.2d 742, 618 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10850

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 742 (Claim of Pikcilingis v. Macy's) 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 Pikcilingis v. Macy's, 209 A.D.2d 742, 618 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 1, 1992, [743]*743which ruled that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market and denied her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant was employed as a salesperson. She sustained compensable injuries to both knees in 1985 and was subsequently found to be permanently, partially disabled. Claimant returned to work with the employer, retiring in July 1990. Testimony indicated that upon her return to work from the 1985 injuries, claimant’s duties were modified to accommodate her disability, that she was not told by her doctor that she had to retire and that she did so without medical consultation. In light of this testimony, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily removed herself from the labor market.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 1, 1992, [743]*743which ruled that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market and denied her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant was employed as a salesperson. She sustained compensable injuries to both knees in 1985 and was subsequently found to be permanently, partially disabled. Claimant returned to work with the employer, retiring in July 1990. Testimony indicated that upon her return to work from the 1985 injuries, claimant’s duties were modified to accommodate her disability, that she was not told by her doctor that she had to retire and that she did so without medical consultation. In light of this testimony, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily removed herself from the labor market.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 742, 618 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-pikcilingis-v-macys-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack