CompFox AI Summary
Claimant, a former Cortland County Sheriff’s Deputy, sustained severe work-related injuries in 1981, leading to permanent disability and awarded workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the self-insured employer disputed medical bills incurred between 2005 and 2006 for a pacemaker infection, suspecting the claimant settled a third-party malpractice action without consent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found in favor of the medical providers due to the employer's failure to present evidence of such a settlement despite multiple adjournments. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the employer's lack of diligence in timely submitting evidence, including a stipulation of discontinuance. The employer's appeal for full Board review was also denied.
Claim of Hulbert v. Cortland County Sheriff's Department 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 former Cortland County Sheriff’s Deputy, sustained severe work-related injuries in 1981, leading to permanent disability and awarded workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the self-insured employer disputed medical bills incurred between 2005 and 2006 for a pacemaker infection, suspecting the claimant settled a third-party malpractice action without consent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found in favor of the medical providers due to the employer's failure to present evidence of such a settlement despite multiple adjournments. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the employer's lack of diligence in timely submitting evidence, including a stipulation of discontinuance. The employer's appeal for full Board review was also denied.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.