CompFox AI Summary
Claimant, a warehouse employee and delivery person, filed for workers' compensation benefits in March 2004, claiming a back injury from repetitive lifting on June 24, 2002. His physician's C-4 form corroborated the injury date, stating it occurred while lifting a heavy air conditioning unit. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim, asserting it was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, alleging an earlier injury date. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge established a work-related back injury with a June 24, 2002 accident date, which the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently affirmed. This appellate court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision, emphasizing the consistent reporting by the claimant and his physician, and the carrier's failure to provide concrete evidence for an earlier injury. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.
Claim of Guifarro v. Zalman, Reiss & Associates is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Claimant, a warehouse employee and delivery person, filed for workers' compensation benefits in March 2004, claiming a back injury from repetitive lifting on June 24, 2002. His physician's C-4 form corroborated the injury date, stating it occurred while lifting a heavy air conditioning unit. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim, asserting it was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, alleging an earlier injury date. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge established a work-related back injury with a June 24, 2002 accident date, which the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently affirmed. This appellate court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision, emphasizing the consistent reporting by the claimant and his physician, and the carrier's failure to provide concrete evidence for an earlier injury. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.