Search Google Appliance
I bought on sunday so no verification could be done for my insurance. I impulse bought a dress and it does not fit well. This is so ridiculous. We have taken our AAA membership down to bare bones, taken all drivers off of it except for one, and are only keeping it in order to keep our insurance. Martin Luther King Jr. Cuomo on tax reform plan Andrew Cuomo on Donald Trump's proposed tax reform:
II. State Education Department
I would never give them another penny! Run from them, auto drivers and homeowners! This is a terrible article. I use all of the discount sites offered, but you can still typically do better with AAA. And the Disney tickets are much less expensive. And I use roadside assistance ALL the time.
At least twice a year, if not, much more. Their trip-tik concept is outdated with the advent of Google maps and GPS devices. The hotel discounts mean nothing, as I can find rooms cheaper via booking websites. So, nope, AAA is not worth it. If you live in So Cal. I went to AAA last week and it took less than 10 mins to renew my registration vs going to the DMV waiting 45 mins to an hour.
I made several calls to AAA today to try to find out why I should have had to pay this additional charge and was shuffled back and forth and became quite frustrated. In the end my home office mid-atlantic spoke to the Tidewater office and said Tidewater customer relations did agree finally to refund my money.
AAA now has a same day service policy which requires that those who renew just to receive service will be required to pay a same day service fee along with the membership dues. Primarily now, I get AAA discounts on hotels.
Even if you use AAA just for one towing you get your money back, not mentioning th ehotel discounts. I did not renew my membership. I received a call from an AAA rep.
She ask to me I told her. She go really nasty on the phone and I hung up on her. I see people are still commenting on your post. The value of these points and promotions generally runs from 12 to 25 percent of the hotel cost, so missing out on them really hurts. Plus, not getting status and thus losing out on free upgrades to suites and not getting access to free breakfasts and to the executive lounges would be a bummer.
If you book directly with the hotel and take the AAA discount, you get the points and status. You also get crazy discounts just about anywhere. And if that is your mindset, and you bag on AAA, you are flat out retarded…period. Also forgot to mention, unless you are a senior citizen AARP , where else are you going to get the combined buying power of 45 million members? AAA is the white stag for every retailer and manufacturer in this country. Be a member and profit.
Be a doubter and pay more. AAA basic covers 3 mile towing — pretty useless. So I bought the basic membership. Just made two Great decisions today! It to but AARP, because of a great website that told all the reasons not to! Well good for you that you have a super nice car that never breaks down. When it broke down last week, I paid nothing, other than my 60 dollar per year membership fee.
I now have the roadside assistance package from Geico, which is limitless and fast and easy and cost only a few extra dollars a year. AAA was a nightmare. First of all, AAA is divided into national sections; each area of the country operates under different rules. The differences may be found in their details, but they are often details defining the parameter of the roadside service. I learned the hard way that this is why it may often take AAA forever to arrive at a scene for service.
On top of that, there are limitation for how many tows per year your membership provides, how far you may be towed after which you pay — a lot. This also affects how many of the other roadside assistance options your membership entitles you to. The operators you call when in trouble have been, for me, not very nice. Seems to me that AAA must have been a good deal at one time. Today it appears to be a gimmick designed to exact extra charges whenever possible. People working for AAA are never very friendly over the phone, which leads me to believe they are constantly responding to angry member and, as employees, are treated by the company with the same contempt they treat members over the phone.
As far as travel service is concerned, AAA travel agents want to book you with companies that they have agreements with, which are not always the most economic choices. Usually, with a little effort, one may find better deals on the internet or with travel agencies that have nothing to do with AAA.
Why deal with AAA when there are better deals for everyone of their supposed services out there? One time I was stuck in Nevada on the way to Reno in the middle of nowhere and late at night. The tow truck companies have contracts and they have to abide by them. I have my membership since 3yrs ago,did not use much of their service though. Recently got disappointed with the battery service. Had a bad battery so I bought my battery from the towing service ,Hollywood Towing.
After less than a month, the battery dont charge, I keep on complaing and they came to service many times. When I get the paper frm Autozone, it says good but Autozone explained that its really a BAD battery,the paper says good coz it charge but after taking it off,it discharges. They dont accept the reasoning. NEVER buy battery from them, this is the advice i got from, friends,mechanic,relatives..
They also experienced the same thing with them. I got AAA for my son several years ago when het went to college…about 60 miles from home.
He only used it a few times. I then got it for my daughter when she went to college. I got the plus because she had to get a tow as well, and she was slightly more than 60 miles. Unfortunately, this year they both used it at least 4 times each. I, in fact, just joined under the same plan because I needed a tow as well…only 8 miles. I thought we got miles free towing per year!!! I will now have to find something else. This is so annoying. This is so ridiculous. They tow members cars up to miles and the BEST part is..
I researched and called them and liked what I found. I have since used them for a battery jump TWICE and they were spectacular, so I recommended them to a few friends and just like they promised, the money was immediately sent to me that following Friday! The basic plan which to my knowledge is where everyone new starts, you cannot just sign up for Premier……or maybe you can now but not back then.
When I left Seattle for back east AAA told me everything would be fine, just call the local office back east and change over the membership. Now back east, they wanted me to start from scratch again to which their corporate in Florida gave no help what-so-ever toward maintaining my premier status I had earned.
Towing was 3 miles or the nearest service station while premier at that time was miles……now miles! It is getting batter by leaps and bounds! In all the years I have had AAA, other than the moving incident, they have been top shelf!
I have had my vehicles towed at least a half dozen times throughout the year and a couple battery jumps with total reliability! They only give a discount to the second member on the plan. Plus without the premium plan, I believe you have to pay for towing after five miles. I have gotten a rental the past two just for someone slicing my tires because it had to be towed and I needed a car. For the any Wal-mart customer there are two simple ways to get help, one is contact to officials by customer support phone number, or visit online services help using how to walmart.
Here all the articles are best written by experts. Ridiculous article…AAA is totally worth it. If you lock your keys in your car once every two years, it pays itself off. Y not have two different membership cards. I hope my point of view helps many of you. In the past, no problems if our car broke down on the road, got stuck in the mud in North Carolina or stuck in the snow in our driveway.
A rechnician came within an hour and would resolve the issue. Today our car was stuck in our driveway, unable to move due to the foot of snow and ice recently fallen in our are…not a problem in the past as a tow truck driver would extricate you from the snow. Meet the new loophole the roadside emergency companies use NOT to perform the services you thought you paid. When I mentioned to the agent, this was permitted in. I reminded the agent that I could have reported the car was non -functioning, gotten a free tow to a neatby repair shop and, aftet the tow driver had left, driven the car back to the end of the driveway where I wanted it towed in the first place!
How many tow trucks even bother to attempt to start the car anyway? What am I getting for my money? Most new vehicles today come with a Roadside Assistance plan. Another thing to consider, if you are planning to purchase a AAA membership: The temp card indicates Southern New England. If you use Verizon, you owe it to yourself to look into a AAA membership.
Motor club of America is better than AAA. You get unlimited roadside assistance plus discounts and hospital benefits.. Oh yeah and theres more… LOTS more. It is a shame — shame on you, AAA. I have AAA membership. I had a car that was literally undrivable the tires were ready to fall off because of the rust. I had a tow to pick up the car from the repair shop to get it back to my home. First they wanted the licenses on the car but I told them it was going to be transferred to the new car the next day.
I had an emergency my car needed to be told 22 miles not 3 miles. AAA told me that I have to wait for seven days in order to get that service. AAA policy; Fifty year members,Free membership. If you can provide further information a lot of us would be interested.
Just tried to have AAA stop mailing my mother renewal notices. She died 8 months ago and her credit cards were closed shortly thereafter. I was told on the phone that just to remove her name from the mailing list and have them stop trying to bill her card, I had to provide a Power of Attorney.
Stupidest thing I ever heard. First off, POAs expire at the death of the person so it would be invalid. For me it would probably be good for my situation.
I work 30 miles from home and drive an older car. I get the feeling the writer of the article is financially better off than me. There is a 30 day waiting period for an elapsed renewal. On the other hand this may be fraud if you are only actually getting 11 months of real service! Not sure if they push the renewal date a month forward the next time but it is someting to watch.
I find better rates for Insurance outside of AAA. They lured me in with a teaser rate then proceeded to jack it up every 6 months through Travellers. I have a perfect driving record and great credit.
One thing to remember with AAA- it covers the person and any vehicle he is travelling at the time. It does not have to be yours. My wife was stranded in a rural Tennessee town when our pickup would not start.
Their tow truck was available. AAA reimbursed me for it. To say the least, we were not happy with them. But we are still members. That should tell you the level of competence of their drivers. Waited for over 2. Never received a call from the driver. When I called to cancel the assistance, they said it was already cancelled. Will not renew membership. I was adding auto club benefits benefits similar to AAA to my auto insurance policy.
I began asking the agent questions comparing it to AAA. Insurance company benefits only include coverage for MY car with me at the scene when services are needed. Then I asked if I used the service would it count against me as a claim and cause my premium to increase.
Once the agent affirmed that my premium would increase for any use of the auto club benefits, I had him to stop adding this to my policy. He completely understood my decision. When my daughter began driving I bought AAA membership for my peace of mind. Called AAA and was told I had used all my tows for the year. They still sent a truck out to get me and towed me all the way into Vegas! Things may have changed, but I am still a member because of that…. Free replacement if you go to a AAA service center where them run a battery test before replacement it a stall tactic to twist your arm to buy another battery from them.
Remember to pay attention. My wife upgraded to the plus plan which includes 4 free mile tows. Crazy she did that after we have only had the basic roadside coverage for years. Then later in the year I was involved in a rear end accident — my fault — and my car was totalled. I was more than the basic coverage of 10 miles from my house. They towed my totalled car to my house then a few days later I sold the car to a guy interested in parts more than 25 miles away.
They came and towed the car to his house. You never know about these things happening until they do. We will never give up our coverage…A small price to pay for additional peace of mind.
I have been in a fight with the San Diego Mission Valley office. I came in Feb of this year to turn in my paperwork on the car I just bought. I bought on sunday so no verification could be done for my insurance. Monday was a holiday so I went Tuesday to turn things in.
Five months later the gap insurance is suing me over a prime I owe them. I call the office I went to, the receptionist was rude then would not give me corporate phone number. All around Ass holes to me. It gets,worse they still have not fixed nor given an apology. The clerk who cause this hadno action taken against her or their office. As far as them taking care of there customers.
They score the lowest. If considering them shop around. I got with them based on others say they are a good company. To many other companies offer better. Shop around and ask what are your company polices if I have a problem. I have Ben with them 4 years and there are limits on services you never hear about till you user their services too much. This company needs to be sued by a class action lawsuit.
When they got to big and the customers started to suffer the Supreme Court made the break down their companies. Still waiting for them to fix this. Their screw up landed on my credit report.
Nothing is being done nor do think it will be fixed. I hate companies who behave this way. They get a pension when they retire!! Loss of benefits over the years. First they dropped the towing distance ? Then introduced Plus membership.
They ended their very useful Vehicle Inspection Service. I live in NC. We let our AAA membership expire accidently. When I needed a tow I called them. They told me my membership had expired and I renewed it on the phone right then. Tow truck showed up 15 minutes later. AAA has all the reputable tow companies on board, and that leaves all the fly by nights to work for the rest. If you ever need a tow, AAA will beat the pants off the also-rans.
If you want reliable, professional service AAA is the only game in town. Our vehicle broke down,we knew the radiator was empty. Were told they could not bring that because it was not safe. They offered gas or a jump. Maybe the AAA employee that answered the phone was less than smart. I am not impressed. And the cost for a first timer is cheaper than a renewal????
One phone call gets me the same guy that everyone in my neighborhood gets. Time to renew policy. Went up dollars because we drpped a third car. We get ripped off here in michigan. AAA is great for roadside assistance, especially if you can cut out the expense from other auto insurance. It is more reasonably priced and offers more. It has helped me numerous times, even though my cars have always been new and well kept. The card covers YOU, not just your vehicle. Any vehicle you are in, it will cover you.
This is one membership that is worth the money and the peace of mind that comes with having it. Or he believes bad things only happen to stupid people. I have the Premium membership — I have never been less than miles from home when I need a tow, and I am usually more than miles. You raise some good points. If so, no problem. Another person who wrecked nearby it was a multi-car pileup had to go to an ATM and take out hundreds of dollars.
But I like your style — it is good to critically evaluate these things. Your insurance company might have cheaper towing insurance. He then tried to lift it by the bumper corner, twisting the fender. Did this in front of witnesses yet claimed it was pre-existing damage. AAA refused to pay for damages. Fast forward 3 years. Locked out of car and call AAA. Both interior door handles broken by AAA driver gaining access.
Report problem to AAA and they completely ignored complaint. Even if I never get to use the roadside services, the membership pays for itself and makes me some money in savings. I have had AAA for about a half a year. No problems, or assistances needed. Hit a deer northern Minnesota and called for help at 9 pm, it came at midnight, 50 miles… due to the towtruck not being given correct location by AAA…. That is nuts, this is the cyber age, the computer age, the age of whiz bang, and they process claims like they are using 3 X 5 cards and lead pencils.
I am out of here the minute the check comes… Premium service my Democrat! Look up the word Premium, dingalings!. Have had AAA membership for years. Over the course of time I had kids, who were added to auto insurance policy. Did the math — not worth it. After all those years of membership, when the time to use it needed to count, it was not there for me. Today I received a certified letter claiming that I was using their service for my business and not personally which is not true.
I am not sure if that is a bill or what so I have to spend the whole day sending them certified letter and dispute theses charges or even have to go to court. I do not really care to have AAA service again since they expect everyone to pay and not use the service. Also, If you have a business, do not use AAA or expect a huge bill in the mail.
If you let your membership expire, they will call repeatedly to renew, and this is after you ask them to stop calling. Will never do business again with a company that disregards your requests and constantly invades your privacy. Actually i disagree with everything your saying. Im a tow truck driver for AAA. Firstly 5 yes you can immediately renew your membership its only the basic membership that is immediately able to use. Which is only 3 miles. I tow about AAA a week. Trust me you need it.
The local AAA auto shop is very trustworthy and usually comes in under their estimate for work I have authorized. They check out concerns about my car for free and this gives me such peace of mind since I do not know a lot about cars. I have locked myself out of my car a few times or been with a friend that did and they still came and did not charge me. They are just very trustworthy and helpful! I hate the DMV…. It does not have to be your vehicle. So more than pd for itself. All medical plan participants will be automatically enrolled in an new vision plan through Davis Vision.
Vision identification cards will be mailed to your home address on or about October 1, Prescription drug coverage will continue to be provided through Excellus under the new Classic Plan. Summary Medical Insurance Rates: Box , Eagan, MN Home Delivery - Prescriptions by mail: Set up a Mail Order Member Acccount online at www. She also testified that, although it was supposed to be a paid position, she was not paid due to her refusal to participate in the training program.
In July , claimant, found to have hypersensitivity reaction to the presence of fungi, had her claim established with a finding of temporary total disability. In , the claim was amended to include multiple chemical sensitivity and awards were continued. After a Law Judge classified claimant with a permanent total disability, the Board rescinded that finding, referring the matter to an impartial specialist to report on the claimant's disability classification rate.
The impartial specialist testified that multiple chemical sensitivity is not a medically-recognized condition and, in any event, it was his opinion that claimant was not suffering from any causally-related disability. Her January 11, letter seeking a hearing to determine degree of disability resulted in a hearing at which the Law Judge construed the Board's December 19, decision as rejecting his prior decision that claimant suffered a causally-related total disability but continued the case for further development of the record to determine clamant's appropriate, lesser degree of disability.
The employer appealed on the grounds that the Board, on December 12, , had precluded further development of the record as there was no causally-related disability. This appeal was accepted by the Board in a January decision. The Court noted that on January 11, , claimant did file a notice of appeal with the Court as to the December 19, Board decision, but failed to timely perfect that appeal.
Claimant received workers comp benefits for work-related injuries until when she returned to work. After her employment ended in April , she raised the issues of permanency and reduced wages. A Law Judge awarded additional benefits from April 11, to October 29, , but found no further compensable lost time. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the Board's denial of claimant's application was arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of its discretion.
After claimant filed a claim for benefits stating that he had suffered a stroke while working, a Law Judge determined that there was a causal relationship between claimant's stroke and his employment and established the claim. Prevailing Part y represented by: Claimant opposed, claiming that the appeal was untimely given that the November decision — not the January decision — was final with regard to the SLU.
The Court agreed with the Board that, because the Law Judge made the November decision without any explanation of how the As noted by the Board, a schedule award is not given for an injury, but for the residual physical and functional impairments. Although since claimant has had a neck condition requiring surgeries and intermittent treatment, he worked full time with restrictions until October , when he fell at work sustaining injuries to his back. Thus, we agree with the Board that apportionment is not applicable here.
In June , claimant suffered a work-related injury with benefits paid up to June 20, , when plaintiff returned to work. In April , claimant's physician requested authorization for an MRI which, on April 23, , showed a medial and lateral meniscal tear. On June 26, , the physician requested authorization to perform surgery, which was performed in late July The Court found that the Board incorrectly considered the case closed once the MRI application was approved in April and then was reopened June 26, when surgery was requested.
The Court wrote that in prior cases it recognized that " decision authorizing [an] MRI [does] not constitute a true closing of the case as [the] claimant's future treatment depended upon the results of the MRI and, thus, further action was contemplated although not planned at that time.
Accordingly, and despite the fact that the hearing transcript was destroyed, the matter must be remitted for further development of the record as to whether claimant ever received or was even entitled to disability payments subsequent to April 21, and to address the absence of a reduced earnings award in the decision at issue herein. Schottenstein alleges that Silverman exceeded the scope of his assigned task by reporting that the medical records he reviewed indicated possible fraudulent billing and unnecessary treatment rendered, and recommending that the matter be referred to the Office of Professional Misconduct and the Attorney General's Office.
The Appellate Court ruled that: The complaint fails to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since defendant's report fails "to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized communit y.
On June 14, , the injured worker, a 56 year old male, was allegedly injured while in a tunnel 60 feet below ground, traveling in a type of train car when the train allegedly stopped violently and abruptly causing him to be thrown forward and backward.
The injuries have resulted in pain, deformity, disability, stiffness, tenderness, tingling sensation, weakness and limitation and have further prevented the plaintiff from enjoying the normal fruits of his activities, including but not limited to social, economic, and educational. The injured worker objected to some of these demands on the grounds that not all these providers treated him for any of the injuries that he sustained as a result of the accident, and that the demands were "irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
However, it is equally well-settled that "[t]he waiver of the physician-patient privilege made by a party who affirmatively asserts a physical condition in its pleading does not permit discovery of information involving unrelated illnesses and treatments. The Court noted that when a plantiff asserts claims for loss of enjoyment of life or for lost future earnings due to a permanent disability, the physical or mental conditions that are affirmatively placed at issue are not readily apparent, which complicates the determination as to what would be " related " to the "condition at issue.
After citing different interpretations from the other Appellate Divisions regarding the scope of the waiver of physician-patient privilege when loss of enjoyment of life is claimed, the Court determined that, by pleading "total disability ", a plaintiff has waived the physician-patient privilege as to his entire medical history.
However, a carrier can establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on this category without medical evidence by citing other evidence, such as the injured worker's own deposition testimony or records demonstrating that injured worker was not prevented from performing all of the substantial activities constituting customary daily activities for the prescribed period. Once the carrier meets this initial burden, the injured worker must then demonstrate a triable issue of fact as to whether he or she sustained a serious injury The injured worker claims he sustained, inter alia, injuries to his right knee, left shoulder and lumbar spine, and an exacerbation of a preexisting left ankle injury as a result of the August 9, motor vehicle accident.
Thus, injured worker failed to submit any evidence that raises a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Petitioner Gonzalez is alleged to have sustained injury on August 14, in a fall while working at the MTA yard in the Bronx. Time sheets reveal that Gonzalez had regularly attended work at the Bronx railway yard where his injury was sustained during the period beginning October 31 and extending through November 16, , and he does not dispute that he traveled by car.
In addition, petitioners do not allege that they were prevented from using alternative methods of public transportation to reach their attorney's office.
Petitioners, in Gonzalez's sworn affidavit, have boldly misrepresented their ability to travel into the City to meet with counsel and omitted that Gonzalez actually did travel into the City on numerous occasions in the weeks immediately prior to expiration of the time period for serving a notice of claim. While the absence of support for a proffered excuse may be outweighed by other considerations petitioners' attempt to deceive the court as to why they were unable to file a timely notice of claim should not be condoned and alone warrants dismissal of the application.
With claimant receiving benefits from a injury at the temporary total disability rate since , a Law Judge issued a decision in November that continued benefits at that rate. Then in May , the Judge issued a decision continuing those benefits but granted the carrier the right to suspend payments if claimant failed to produce current medical evidence. After the employer appealed both decisions, a Board panel affirmed the Judge.
With regards to the decision, because the issues of medical evidence not warranting a finding of temporary total disability and voluntary withdrawal from the work force were not raised before the Judge, the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider them.
When the carrier raised these issues at the hearing and the Judge ruled against them, the Board found that the appeal from that decision was " moot " because the arguments were identical to the ones it refused to consider in the appeal from the November decision. Under these circumstances, the Court determined that, " the Board failed to engage in its fact-finding role, thereby depriving [the employer] of the opportunity to have the Board consider the merits of an issue that was properly preserved,' [and] its decision must be reversed to allow that review to occur.
After filing his claim in March , after a hearing in claimant and his treating physicians appeared and testified, a Law Judge found that the claimant had sustained a work-related injury.
A Board penal reversed, finding that the medical evidence did not support that finding. The claimant testified that he immediately sought medical treatment and the next day he advised the employer. Although the physician noted that claimant lifted heavy objects as part of his job, no mention was made of when or how claimant injured his back, and the physician acknowledged that claimant previously had been treated for back pain by another provider. When claimant returned for a follow-up visit one week later, the physician noted that claimant's "back went out " the preceding Monday and that claimant reported "lift[ing] some furniture at home.
Claimant then was referred to an orthopedist, who evaluated him on October 15, According to the orthopedist's records, claimant's back pain began at home on October 10, , this "recurrent " pain came on "[g]radually" and claimant " denie[d] trauma.
Claimant sustained several work-related injuries to his shoulders, causing him to miss time from work. Although a Law Judge ruled a temporary total disability and awarded benefits for several of periods of time when he was not working, the employer did not file a request for reimbursement for two of those time periods until after the awards of compensation for those periods had been made. When the Law Judge later awarded an SLU, he precluded the employer from seeking reimbursement for the two time periods for which it had not timely filed claims for reimbursement.
That statute provides that "any salary or wages paid to. In rejecting the employers argument the Court wrote: To analyze these provisions, "the text of a statute is the best evidence of legislative intent and, where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used. Because these two provisions are related statutes in the Workers' Compensation Law, they "must be construed together unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed, and courts must harmonize the related provisions in a way that renders them compatible.
These cross appeals resulted when the Albany County Supreme Court, on September 4, , among other actions. After the employer, in , raised the issue of attachment to the labor market and sought the testimony of claimant and his medical providers on the issue, a Law Judge denied the employer's request for claimant's testimony, but continued the matter for cross-examination of two of claimant's medical providers.
In reversing, the Court noted that: After viewing the video surveillance, the physician concluded that "claimant clearly is capable of doing far more home-based activities than he admitted to during my independent examination.
Under these circumstances, the Board's finding that "[t]he video surveillance does not show any images of the claimant engaging in physical activities inconsistent with any representation he had made to any of the parties' doctors" was determined not to be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Similarly here, the physician who performed the independent medical examination stated that the surveillance revealed claimant to be "capable of doing far more home-based activities than he admitted to during [the] independent examination. The Court returned the case to the Board for a determination of whether claimant's failure to disclose the extent of his abilities was material, and done both knowingly and for the purpose of obtaining benefits.
She had surgery in and, in , a nerve conduction study revealed possible mild left carpal tunnel syndrome as well. Her doctor's progress report submitted to the Board diagnosed a continued carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands. But the Board found the progress report left issues regarding the left hand unresolved at the time that the employer sought transfer of liability.
Accordingly, the Board's determination that the case was never truly closed was supported by substantial evidence and the transfer of liability was properly denied. In March , claimant — now employed by the City of Geneva Police Department hereinafter GPD — was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. Shortly thereafter, he began receiving mental health treatment, resigned from his employment with GPD, filed a claim for workers' comp citing his time at the WTC as the cause of injury, naming HPD as his employer.
The carrier appealed to the Court on the basis that contended claimant's activity did not constitute participation in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations such that it would be covered by Article 8-A and the Board improperly denied their application for FBR.
After 15 years working as a school custodian, in , claimant sought medical treatment for problems, resulting in surgery on both elbows and knees. He filed a claim in September for workers comp based on injuries attributable to " repetitive use of physical labor going up and down the stairs, lifting heavy boxes, [and] shoveling snow.
The law judge reestablished the claim, set the data disablement as January 19, , and included the left knee in the claim. Given that the cited precedent is a prior decision in this case, the applicable doctrine is law of the case. In view of this, the Law Judge's September 10, reserved decision did not foreclose further consideration of this issue by the Board. Technically speaking, the doctrine of res judicata "precludes a party from litigating 'a claim where a judgment on the merits exists from a prior action [or proceeding] between the same parties involving the same subject matter'".
Inasmuch as a prior action or proceeding is not involved here, this doctrine is inapplicable. Although he knew his problems were related to his work as of March and had surgery and medical treatment for a year and a half before filing his claim, he left the employer with no knowledge that the injuries were work-related nor giving it an opportunity to investigate the claim.
Here, claimant acknowledged that he spent most of his time at a membership cafe and occasionally, among other things, unlocked the cafe door in the morning and swept the premises in exchange for the owner, his cousin, allowing him to sleep in a room above the cafe following marital difficulties.
According to claimant, he received no compensation for any minimal activity that he performed at the cafe. The employer's surveillance videos and testimony of its private investigator did not contradict claimant's testimony, which primarily show claimant sitting or standing outside the cafe smoking, talking on a cell phone or drinking coffee.
To the extent that the employer challenges the denial of its application for full Board review on the ground that it was denied solely by the chair on behalf of the Board, we find that such challenge is moot given that a three-member panel subsequently considered and denied that application for full Board review as set forth in a decision filed June 23, Injured in , claimant first sought medical treatment in April and continued to work until March The filing of his claim [ Ed.
The Court noted that decisions on compensation claims issued by arbitrators pursuant to an authorized alternative dispute resolution program are not reviewed by the Workers Comp Board, but may be appealed directly to the Court. Also, the substantial evidence standard does not apply to appeals of claims reaching the Court through the latter procedural route; rather, these cases are reviewed under the standard applicable to review of arbitration awards in general.
Pursuant to that standard, courts have limited power to review an arbitrator's award and the Court cited a prior ruling: Claimant has not shown that the award was irrational, which would require a showing of an utter lack of any proof to justify the award. Claimant presented proof that his first treatment occurred in April As claimant concedes that the date of disablement is a discretionary determination and the date of first medical treatment is a proper option, the arbitrator's selection of that date was not irrational.
Singer of counsel to the Special Funds respondent. The carrier appealed, during which time the claimant died from causes unrelated to the underlying injury. The carrier then requested that the decisions directing it to make a lump-sum payment to the ATF be rescinded because of claimant's death.
The Board upheld the decision by a 2 to 1 vote. Because there was a dissent, the carrier was entitled to and sought full Board review. As noted in my e-mail BULLETIN issued this afternoon, just after the Court of Appeals issued this decision, it is my sense that the legislation was either purposely muddled or designed in the same way as the proverbial elephant: Langan, a former U.
Treasury official who wrote the following in an op-ed entitled " The Language of Diplomacy ": At one point in my federal government career, I wrote up an explanation of a complicated matter in which I considered to be an extremely clear, cogent manner.
The senior government official to whom I reported read it carefully, ruminating and adjusting his glasses as he read it. Then he looked up at me and said " This isn't any good. I understand it completely. Take it back and muddy it up. I want the statement to be able to be interpreted two or three ways. After a claim was placed for a November work related injury, the carrier controverted the claim on the grounds that the employer's policy had been canceled in August due to failure of the employer to pay the premiums.
In affirming the Board, the Court noted that the record showed that the carrier had sent the cancellation notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the employer's chief executive officer at her home address, on or about August 4, , with an effective date of cancellation of August 18, Claimant sustained non-work-related, serious injuries to his neck, back and left shoulder as the result of and automobile accidents.
He continued working as a car inspector for the self-insured employer until , when after developing incapacitating neck, back and leg pain, he applied for workers' comp, asserting that his physical problems and a consequential psychiatric injury were related to repetitive work-related tasks and constituted an occupational disease.
Although the employer failed to timely file a notice of controversy and, as such, was precluded from submitting evidence on the issue of whether claimant's condition arose out of and in the course of his employment, the Judge, later affirmed by a Board panel, found the opinions of claimant's treating physicians regarding causation to be incredible and disallowed the claim.
The employer's failure to timely file a notice of controversy did not "relieve claimant from his burden to demonstrate a causal relationship" between his employment and medical condition. The Court then noted that:. The record here reflects that claimant has been receiving related medical treatment from at least onward. Claimant sought more intensive treatment after his pain worsened in , but no physician drew a causal link between the condition and his employment until he raised the issue with his physicians at a friend's urging.
An orthopedic surgeon who treated claimant further testified that claimant gave conflicting accounts as to how he had aggravated the condition in and that claimant's spinal and shoulder problems could have resulted from degenerative changes.
The Board was free to reject this less-than-compelling medical evidence as incredible and, as such, substantial evidence supports its finding that claimant did not show the existence of a causally related occupational disease. After a work-elated back injury resulted in the claimant leaving the nursing profession because of her moderate, permanent partial disability and began working in a delicatessen, at a lower wage.
Upon claimant's application for review, the Board increased claimant's degree of disability and concluded that her wage loss benefits should be based upon her actual reduced earnings from the delicatessen where she now works, as opposed to her degree of disability, and adjusted her weekly awards accordingly. The Court of Appeals has repeatedly explained that, for claimants who have demonstrated that they remain attached to the labor market, "where actual earnings during the period of the disability are established, wage earning capacity must be determined exclusively by the actual earnings of the injured employee without evidence of capacity to earn more or less during such disability period.
As the result of a work-related automobile accident, claimant successfully filed a claim for injuries to his the neck and back later that year, with claimant directed " to submit medical evidence for all additional sites claimed.
In April , after alleging that he had sustained mental injuries as a result of the incident, that claim was combined with his case which was amended to include consequential posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. The claimant did return to work but suffered from various stress issues on his return, all of which were clearly delineated by his treating psychologist who stated in no uncertain terms that those conditions flowed from the May incident.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Insider September 18, This case has been posted because there are a number of very unhappy injured workers who feel that the NYS workers compensation systems, i. This decision basically tells them that seeking redress through the federal courts will not work. That is an overstatement. Email the Insider with your c omments and questions. The Court noted in a footnote that: I have sent an e-mail to the law firm inquesion asking about the continuing to appel Board decisionson this issue and will print their response next week.
One year after receiving an award based upon her claim that work-related stress caused her to develop an adjustment disorder with mixed depressed mood and anxiety and chronic emotional stress, she sought to amend her claim to include causally-related cardiac conditions of hypertension, mitral and tricuspid heart valve insufficiency and an enlarged left atrium. The result of several hearing found no further causally-related disability and no entitlement to payment for intermittent lost time.
He further opined that the minimal mitral and tricuspid valve insufficiency levels evidenced in claimant's echocardiogram report were normal, as such trace conditions are commonly found in most people. Finally, he opined that claimant's enlarged left atrium could not have been caused by stress or psychological factors, based upon the results of the echocardiogram.
As to the request for intermittent lost time benefits, the claimant had been taking off an entire day for a minute appointment, which her psychologist said could have been scheduled for later in the afternoon. The self-insured employer SIE asserted that she had staged the fall. A Law Judge, after conducting hearings and viewing video footage of the incident, established the claim.
The employer alleged that claimant misrepresented the degree of his disability. After several hearings, decisions by Law Judges, Board panels, and a full board review, it was determined that while the Fund does not have standing "t o litigate the primary issues of compensability of the underlying claim for benefits " or " to reopen a claimant's case and contest the compensability of the claim, " it does have standing with respect to proceedings involving claims against the Fund.
Singer of counsel to the Special Funds. The plaintiff was assigned by TemPositions to Columbia University and, while walking to the coatroom where she was working, tripped and fell. Columbia University established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint through the deposition testimony and affidavit of the general manager at Columbia and the affidavit of TemPositions' chief executive officer, that the defendant controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff's work.
The defendant also had the authority to discharge the plaintiff, and the work she performed was in furtherance of the defendant's business. In addition, the plaintiff, at her own deposition, the transcript of which was submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, stated, inter alia , that TemPositions told her where and to whom to report, but that the defendant's supervisors instructed her on her work duties.
Thus, the defendant established, prima facie , that it was the plaintiff's special employer. It therefore cannot be the exclusive remedy. However, the critical distinction in this case is that the motor vehicle accident involved vehicles operated by coemployees.
The prescribed SUM endorsement language at issue is plain and unambiguous. Indeed, as noted above, the standard form for SUM coverage was promulgated in order to "eliminate ambiguity, minimize confusion and maximize its utility. In the overwhelming majority of those decisions, all interpreting similar "legally entitled to recover damages" policy language, the courts have concluded that, because of workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions, a plaintiff is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits.
Here, pursuant to the plain language of the SUM endorsement, plaintiff is not "legally entitled to recover damages" from the owner and operator of the offending vehicle because of the status of the operator, Cathlyn Haggerty, as plaintiff's coemployee. Claimant, a police sergeant, filed a claim for workers' comp benefits asserting that he suffered a work-related myocardial infarction December 18, , first experiencing mild symptoms while exercising that morning and that, after ascending a flight of stairs at work, he began experiencing shortness of breath, chest pain and arm numbness.
His subsequent visit to the hospital showed he suffered a myocardial infarction. The Board ultimately ruled that the infarction was precipitated by the stair climbing, and that it constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of claimant's employment.
As the two cardiologists who participated in this case opined that the stair climbing at work acted to trigger a myocardial infarction and no medical evidence was presented to call the opinions of those physicians into question, substantial evidence in the record supported the Board's determination that claimant's myocardial infarction was causally linked to his employment.
After the claimant testified in that she had not worked for anyone in any capacity during the time following her injury, the carrier presented surveillance videos and a written report prepared by a private investigator reflecting claimant leaving her home, driving to a chiropractor's office and remaining there for several hours, wearing a uniform bearing that office's logo, and running errands with other people from that office.
The Court agreed that this constituted substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination that claimant was working after her injury and concealed her employment for the purposes of receiving benefits. The employer conceded, however, that it did not raise this issue either before the WC Law Judge or in its initial application for review by the Board panel, and the Board did not address it. In both cases, ' claimants ' appealed, challenging both the denial of venue transfer and the penalty.
In fact, these two cases bring to a total of three that have been argued, and lost, on this one issue by the Law Offices of Joseph Romano, since December of last year. After the claimant had obtained benefits, she and the carrier stipulated that claimant had sustained a permanent partial disability and had not voluntarily removed herself from the work force, with a decision to that effect issued in Several years later, an IME found claimant capable of working with restrictions.
The Board, noting its departure from prior precedent, held that " a claimant's failure to respond to a work search inquiry without something more may not constitute sufficient evidence of a triable issue of fact upon which a reopening may be based.
If this case appears familiar, it is. The petitioning law firm, the Law Offices of Joseph A. Claimant was an employee of Alitalia until his position was eliminated as part of a staff reduction program at which time he was hired by Swissport to, in effect, perform for Swissair exactly the same duties under the same manner of supervision and work rules.
The employer ILT is a tutoring referral and billing service that provides in-home tutors to clients seeking assistance with school work and test preparation.
After being assessed for unemployment insurance contributions on behalf of the tutors, ILT countered that its tutors were independent contractors. Claimant injured his back while working and thereafter worked intermittently both for his original employer and at a new employer, LKQ Broadway where he was ultimately terminated absenteeism. After he ceased working and received unemployment insurance benefits, a Law Judge concluded that his separation from employment was due to his compensable back injury and that he did not voluntarily withdraw from the labor market.
A Board panel, in a split decision, reversed the Law Judge and on Full Board Review, determined that claimant's awards must be rescinded, finding that claimant failed to produce sufficient evidence of an attachment to the labor market. Nevertheless, "even though there is in the record substantial evidence to support the determination made," the Board's "failure to conform to [its] precedent will.
Although the Board found that the claimant was actively participating in a search with One-Stop, because claimant did not provide documentation of his participation, the Board concluded that he failed to adequately demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Under these circumstances, the Board has not adequately explained its departure from its prior precedent.
Accordingly, the decision of the full Board must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Board for further proceedings. Claimant sought psychiatric treatment shortly thereafter and successfully filed a claim for posttraumatic stress and adjustment disorder.
The employer argued that the verbal threat could not give rise to a compensable stress claim, noting mitigating factors such as the presence of others in the operating room and claimant's familiarity with the surgeon's " difficult " personality. However, the Board determined that claimant's uncontroverted psychiatric diagnoses were caused by the incident, and that, threats of physical violence made by her supervisor constituted greater stress than that which normally occurs in similar work environments.
Inasmuch as such determination is supported by substantial evidence and this Court cannot "reject the Board's choice simply because a contrary determination would have been reasonable," it must be upheld. While working as an assistant store manager, he made a telephone call to a coworker at her home to discuss a work-related matter. Following that telephone call, the coworker's husband became convinced that claimant and the coworker were engaged in a romantic relationship, prompting the coworker's husband to undertake a course of threatening and harassing conduct against claimant, culminating in an unsuccessful murder-for-hire plot against him.
Additionally, the coworker's husband contacted claimant's supervisor regarding the alleged affair, which triggered an internal investigation by the employer and ultimately resulted in claimant requesting a transfer to another store. As a result, claimant's preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder was exacerbated to the point that he was unable to continue to work.
Claimant the successfully filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, affirmed by a split Board panel and a Full Board review. Here, the work-related phone call from claimant to his coworker's home was the basis for the subsequent harassment of claimant at his place of employment, the employer's internal investigation and claimant's request for a transfer, all of which exacerbated claimant's preexisting stress disorder.
And since the record revealed no connection between claimant and the coworker's husband outside of claimant's work-related duties, the Board properly found the required nexus between the threatening conduct that exacerbated claimant's preexisting condition and claimant's employment.
Joseph of counsel to James A. In , claimant's husband hereinafter decedent was found to be permanently partially disabled due to injuries to his lungs and he received benefits until his death in The Court agree with the Board that substantial evidence was represented by the decedent's death certificate listing the immediate cause of death as sepsis, as a consequence of respiratory failure and a C medical report completed by decedent's physician of 20 years, who most recently saw decedent in June , opined that decedent's death was caused either directly or indirectly by his work-related illness.
In , plaintiff determined that the Trust was insolvent and assumed its administration. Several appeals and cross appeals were made by all the parties regarding leal fees how much and by whom.