You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Matter of Mickelson v. Value Constr.

Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 4190; 150 A.D.3d 1608; 55 N.Y.S.3d 524Docket: 524200

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; May 25, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, the claimant, a carpenter employed since 1992, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries to his left wrist, initially deemed time-barred by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge who argued the claimant should have known the injury was work-related by 2008. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision but later rescinded it upon full review, establishing the claim with a disablement date of May 6, 2013. The appellate court affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the claimant did not have the requisite knowledge of the work-related nature of his condition until a 2013 diagnosis. The court noted that the claimant, despite experiencing symptoms in 2008 and undergoing surgery in 2009, did not seek further treatment until 2013 and had not missed work due to wrist pain. The appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the timeliness of the claim. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of whether the left wrist injury was consequentially related to a prior right wrist injury, which the Board had raised but not resolved, and remanded the matter for further proceedings on this issue.

Legal Issues Addressed

Consequential Injury Consideration

Application: The appellate court recognized the need for further proceedings on the issue of whether the left wrist injury was consequentially related to an earlier right wrist injury, which the Board had initially considered but not resolved.

Reasoning: The appellate court modified the Board's decision to remit the matter for further proceedings regarding the consequential injury issue, affirming the determination of the claim's timeliness.

Determination of Date of Disablement

Application: The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision that the date of disablement was May 6, 2013, based on the diagnosis of a work-related ligament injury and arthritis.

Reasoning: An orthopedic examination in May 2013 diagnosed him with a work-related ligament injury and arthritis, which led to the Board's determination that disablement occurred on that date.

Timeliness of Workers' Compensation Claims

Application: The court applied the principle that a claim must be filed within two years of the date of disablement and knowledge that the disease was work-related, determining the claim was timely because the claimant did not have the requisite knowledge until 2013.

Reasoning: The appellate court noted that a claim for benefits due to an occupational disease must be filed within two years of disablement and knowledge that the disease was work-related.