Claim of Raiselis v. Byrns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Raiselis v. Byrns

187 A.D.2d 922, 591 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13448

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 922 (Claim of Raiselis v. Byrns) 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 Raiselis v. Byrns, 187 A.D.2d 922, 591 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed January 2, 1991 and September 20, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was entitled to disability benefits.

The Workers’ Compensation Board found that claimant was entitled to receive disability benefits from her pregnancy from October 2, 1989 to December 12, 1989. We agree that claimant was under the care of a physician within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 205 (2) and thus entitled to benefits. This section is to be liberally construed (see, Matter of Hotaling v General Elec. Co., 47 AD2d 689). Here, a form bearing the signature of a certified nurse midwife as well as a signature of a physician signed by the nurse midwife pursuant to the physician’s authorization was submitted in support of the claim. We find that given the regulatory system requiring supervision of nurse midwives by a physician (see, 10 NYCRR part 20), the Board did not err in finding claimant to be under the care of a physician. The argument of the employer that a subsequent amendment of Workers’ Compensation Law § 217 [923]*923(1), to allow nurse midwives to write disability statements, indicates an intent not to allow them to do so prior to the amendment ignores the fact that here the nurse midwife signed the disability statement on behalf of a physician pursuant to his authorization as allowed by general principles of agency law (see, 2 NY Jur 2d, Agency and Independent Contractors, § 19, at 480-481).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. 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 January 2, 1991 and September 20, 1991, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was entitled to disability benefits.

The Workers’ Compensation Board found that claimant was entitled to receive disability benefits from her pregnancy from October 2, 1989 to December 12, 1989. We agree that claimant was under the care of a physician within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 205 (2) and thus entitled to benefits. This section is to be liberally construed (see, Matter of Hotaling v General Elec. Co., 47 AD2d 689). Here, a form bearing the signature of a certified nurse midwife as well as a signature of a physician signed by the nurse midwife pursuant to the physician’s authorization was submitted in support of the claim. We find that given the regulatory system requiring supervision of nurse midwives by a physician (see, 10 NYCRR part 20), the Board did not err in finding claimant to be under the care of a physician. The argument of the employer that a subsequent amendment of Workers’ Compensation Law § 217 [923]*923(1), to allow nurse midwives to write disability statements, indicates an intent not to allow them to do so prior to the amendment ignores the fact that here the nurse midwife signed the disability statement on behalf of a physician pursuant to his authorization as allowed by general principles of agency law (see, 2 NY Jur 2d, Agency and Independent Contractors, § 19, at 480-481).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 922, 591 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-raiselis-v-byrns-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack