|
InsideWorkersCompNY is the creation of Michael T. Berns, former Board Member/Commissioner of the New York State Workers Compensation Board, based on the insight developed during 12 years of service including participation in more than 40,000 decisions and 10,000 hearings.
WORKERS COMPENSATION SECTION 32 SETTLEMENTS
A Treasure or a Trap?
Details, including Custom Book and Quantity Pricing Program and Table of Contents, are here.
Updated weekly, this free website gives insight into the NYS WCB to help the workers comp community understand why the WCB does what it does and how to deal with its inconsistencies and bureaucratic obfuscations as well as giving the community and Board staff an anonymous bulletin board.
COURT DECISIONS: weekly updates of workers comp related decisions from the New York’s various courts and a list of the βwinningestβ attorneys for the year.
NEWSWIRE: weekly listings of key developments from the media as well as various state agencies.
COMMENTARY: my comments on key topics, major court decisions,board policies, and answers to questions from my readers.
BIOS: The commissioners’ official and unofficial biographies.
To receive weekly e-mail alerts, write comments, suggestions, or criticisms contact:TheInsider@InsideWorkersCompNY.com.
Michael T. Berns, The Insider, Commissioner 1996-2008, NYS Workers Compensation Board
| . . . |
May 17, 2012 |
Volume 178 Issue 1
|
. . . |
Board Affirmed in 7 of 8 Cases by 3rd A.D.
“Salvet Soper, Esq”
COMMENTARY To the attorney who wrote me last week in response to my guest writer’s COMMENTARY on Schmidt v LaCroix βYou have been duped. There is no attorney admitted to practice in New York State by the name of Salvet Soper. The name is bogus and based upon the Salvet case that Miller sought to overrule.β No kidding! I wonder if it took you more time to look the name up than it did for the writer to come up with the pseudonym. To eliminate confusion, I have just put quote marks near that name.
DECISIONS The Board had a good week, being affirmed in 7of 8 decisions issued by the Appellate Court this week. While four of the cases dealt with procedures, two involved the Fund winning on Β§15(8)(d): one Bard decision affirmed and a second reversed. The Board issued two contrary decisions on identical Β§15(8)(d) indicia and, as usual, shows confusion on the issue Β§15(8) reimbursements or perhaps it is just a failure to read the doctors’ testimony and reports. The VFBL case was in keeping with prior decisions but the one unique case dealt with Β§16 survivor benefits and the 2007 Amendments. And both pro-se claimants lose their cases.
| 
