Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Jamie HAMBLY, Appellant, v. BIG V SUPERMARKETS et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 15, 1997, which denied claimant benefits for reduced earnings.
In September 1992, claimant, an expense payable clerk, suffered a compensable back injury while lifting boxes and received workers' compensation benefits until she returned to work in November 1992. She continued working for the employer until May 1994 when she resigned after being demoted for excessive absences. The Workers' Compensation Board denied claimant's subsequent application for benefits, finding that her resignation was due to factors unrelated to her back injury. We affirm. Although it is undisputed that claimant suffers from a causally related partial disability, there is no evidence in the record, other than claimant's self-serving and unsupported testimony, that the disability caused her reduced earnings (see, Matter of Mancini v. AAA Waterproofing Co., 89 A.D.2d 651, 453 N.Y.S.2d 120, lv. denied 57 N.Y.2d 607, 455 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 441 N.E.2d 1119; Matter of Yamonaco v. Union Carbide Corp., 42 A.D.2d 1014, 348 N.Y.S.2d 196). To the contrary, the record indicates that claimant advised the employer that she was resigning because she had been demoted. This evidence, together with the contents of claimant's letter of resignation and her testimony that physical ailments other than her back injury caused many of the absences that led to her demotion, constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board's decision (see, Matter of Cameron v. Carrier Air Conditioning Co., 85 A.D.2d 864, 446 N.Y.S.2d 499, appeal dismissed 56 N.Y.2d 1030, 453 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 439 N.E.2d 403). Claimant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 15, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)