Claim of Yuda v. Anchor Motor Freight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Yuda v. Anchor Motor Freight

301 A.D.2d 759, 753 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 73

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 759 (Claim of Yuda v. Anchor Motor Freight) 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 Yuda v. Anchor Motor Freight, 301 A.D.2d 759, 753 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Spain, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June [760]*76018, 2001, which directed that claimant’s medical and transportation expenses be audited and that claimant submit to an independent medical examination.

On April 13, 1990, claimant, a truck driver, sustained a work-related injury to his back and right arm. In October 1999, following years of litigation, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) ordered that claimant’s medical and transportation expenses be audited by the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, apparently to resolve a dispute regarding claimant’s prescription bills and whether certain prescribed medication was for his work-related injuries. Thereafter, in July 2000, the WCLJ referred the matter to the Impartial Specialist Unit of the Workers’ Compensation Board for an examination of claimant and a report on whether a discitis condition developed by claimant was causally related to an epidural steroid injection administered to treat his work-related injuries. Claimant requested review of the October 1999 and July 2000 decisions, both of which were affirmed by the Board in a joint decision. This appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that claimant has set forth no basis for why his medical and transportation expenses should not be audited or why he should not be ordered to submit to a medical examination by an impartial specialist (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 19). As a result, the Board’s determination in this regard will not be disturbed.

Claimant’s arguments concerning improprieties before the WCLJ are equally without merit. Contrary to claimant’s contentions, a full review of the record reflects that the WCLJ did not intimidate claimant or act as a “representative” of the carrier’s attorney and exhibited no partiality in favor of the employer or its carrier. Moreover, the Board reviewed the entire record in affirming the WCLJ’s rulings. That the WCLJ prevented claimant from conducting his cross-examination during the carrier’s direct examination did not operate to deny claimant an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

Spain, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June [760]*76018, 2001, which directed that claimant’s medical and transportation expenses be audited and that claimant submit to an independent medical examination.

On April 13, 1990, claimant, a truck driver, sustained a work-related injury to his back and right arm. In October 1999, following years of litigation, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) ordered that claimant’s medical and transportation expenses be audited by the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, apparently to resolve a dispute regarding claimant’s prescription bills and whether certain prescribed medication was for his work-related injuries. Thereafter, in July 2000, the WCLJ referred the matter to the Impartial Specialist Unit of the Workers’ Compensation Board for an examination of claimant and a report on whether a discitis condition developed by claimant was causally related to an epidural steroid injection administered to treat his work-related injuries. Claimant requested review of the October 1999 and July 2000 decisions, both of which were affirmed by the Board in a joint decision. This appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that claimant has set forth no basis for why his medical and transportation expenses should not be audited or why he should not be ordered to submit to a medical examination by an impartial specialist (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 19). As a result, the Board’s determination in this regard will not be disturbed.

Claimant’s arguments concerning improprieties before the WCLJ are equally without merit. Contrary to claimant’s contentions, a full review of the record reflects that the WCLJ did not intimidate claimant or act as a “representative” of the carrier’s attorney and exhibited no partiality in favor of the employer or its carrier. Moreover, the Board reviewed the entire record in affirming the WCLJ’s rulings. That the WCLJ prevented claimant from conducting his cross-examination during the carrier’s direct examination did not operate to deny claimant an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 759, 753 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-yuda-v-anchor-motor-freight-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack