Claim of Vogts v. Bay Shore Sunrise Bowl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Vogts v. Bay Shore Sunrise Bowl

32 A.D.2d 604, 299 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4101

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

DecidedApril 29, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 604 (Claim of Vogts v. Bay Shore Sunrise Bowl) 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 Vogts v. Bay Shore Sunrise Bowl, 32 A.D.2d 604, 299 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, dated August 24, 1967, which denied its application for a review of the compensation rate of claimant. In its application to the board for review of this reduced earnings rate, the appellant did not purport to be requesting review of any .particular Referee’s decision and indeed, the last decision referring to a rate had been rendered by a Referee on April 18, 1966 and was affirmed by the board on October 21, 1966. It is, therefore, apparent that as to these awards made prior to October 21, 1966 and to subsequent payments made pursuant to that order, the appellant had no right to a review of the rate by way of an appeal. (See Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 23.) The board found: “ As to raising extent of disability, the reduced earnings rate has long since been established and claimant classified and no objection was made by either the carrier or the Special Funds Conservation Committee. It is not contemplated that compensation cases should be tried piece-meal or prolonged unreasonably.” The finding by the board is technically correct as to an application to review prior board decisions and our ■ affirmance is mandated. However, we note that if a rate established is factually and/or legally erroneous, the board has continuing jurisdiction and on its own motion or on a proper application by an interested party, an erroneous rate may be corrected. (See Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 123, 22, 15, subd. 6, par. [a].) We do not consider or pass upon the merits as to the correctness of the reduced earnings rate. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J. .

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

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, dated August 24, 1967, which denied its application for a review of the compensation rate of claimant. In its application to the board for review of this reduced earnings rate, the appellant did not purport to be requesting review of any .particular Referee’s decision and indeed, the last decision referring to a rate had been rendered by a Referee on April 18, 1966 and was affirmed by the board on October 21, 1966. It is, therefore, apparent that as to these awards made prior to October 21, 1966 and to subsequent payments made pursuant to that order, the appellant had no right to a review of the rate by way of an appeal. (See Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 23.) The board found: “ As to raising extent of disability, the reduced earnings rate has long since been established and claimant classified and no objection was made by either the carrier or the Special Funds Conservation Committee. It is not contemplated that compensation cases should be tried piece-meal or prolonged unreasonably.” The finding by the board is technically correct as to an application to review prior board decisions and our ■ affirmance is mandated. However, we note that if a rate established is factually and/or legally erroneous, the board has continuing jurisdiction and on its own motion or on a proper application by an interested party, an erroneous rate may be corrected. (See Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 123, 22, 15, subd. 6, par. [a].) We do not consider or pass upon the merits as to the correctness of the reduced earnings rate. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 604, 299 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-vogts-v-bay-shore-sunrise-bowl-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack