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 Anthony P. MESSINA, Respondent, v. HUDSON NEWS COMPANY et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2010, which directed the employer's workers' compensation carrier to make a deposit into the aggregate trust fund pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 27(2).
Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2004, and was found to suffer from a marked permanent partial disability in 2009. As his injury predated a 2007 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15(3)(w), there is no “cap on the number of weeks for which [he] can receive that subdivision's non-schedule permanent partial disability ․ benefits” (Matter of Proulx v. Burnett Process, 77 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2010]; see L 2007, ch 6, §§ 4, 82[a] ). The award itself was made on or after July 1, 2007, however, and Workers' Compensation Law § 27(2) requires that the employer's workers' compensation carrier pay the award's full amount into the aggregate trust fund (see L 2007, ch 6, § 46; Matter of Proulx v. Burnett Process, 77 AD3d at 1037). The Workers' Compensation Board accordingly directed that the carrier make that payment, and the employer and carrier appeal.
We affirm. We have previously considered and rejected the majority of the challenges made by the employer and carrier to the relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law (see Matter of Proulx v. Burnett Process, 77 AD3d at 1038; Matter of Parkhurst v. United Rentals Aerial Equip., Inc., 75 AD3d 702, 704-705 [2010], lvs granted 15 NY3d 712 [2010]; Matter of Collins v. Dukes Plumbing & Sewer Serv., Inc., 75 AD3d 697, 698-702 [2010], lvs granted 15 NY3d 713, 891 [2010] ). Notwithstanding the urging of the employer and carrier, we do not discern any relevant factual distinctions between those earlier cases and the present one.
The remaining arguments of the employer and carrier have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
STEIN, J.
PETERS, J.P., KAVANAGH, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.
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: February 10, 2011
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)