Narrative Opinion Summary
Motion for reargument is granted without costs. Upon reconsideration, the last paragraph and decretal paragraph from the decision dated July 14, 1983, are amended. The board’s unchallenged finding that the claimant was no longer qualified to perform her regular duties at the time of termination leads to the reversal of the decision that found a violation of section 120 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which imposed a penalty of $100. The decision is reversed, with costs awarded to the employer against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the matter is remitted to the board for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. Judges Mahoney, Sweeney, Main, Casey, and Weiss concur.
Legal Issues Addressed
Amendment of Judicial Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Upon reconsideration, the court amends specific sections of its previous decision, demonstrating the court's authority to modify its judgments.
Reasoning: Upon reconsideration, the last paragraph and decretal paragraph from the decision dated July 14, 1983, are amended.
Motion for Reargumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court grants a motion for reargument without costs, indicating a reconsideration of the prior decision.
Reasoning: Motion for reargument is granted without costs.
Reversal of Workers’ Compensation Board Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reverses the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision and awards costs to the employer, requiring further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Reasoning: The decision is reversed, with costs awarded to the employer against the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the matter is remitted to the board for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Worker's Qualification for Dutiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The board's finding that the claimant was unqualified to perform her regular duties at termination leads to the reversal of a prior finding of a violation of the Workers’ Compensation Law.
Reasoning: The board’s unchallenged finding that the claimant was no longer qualified to perform her regular duties at the time of termination leads to the reversal of the decision that found a violation of section 120 of the Workers’ Compensation Law.