CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiff sustained personal injuries after being ejected from a bucket truck while removing a utility pole. The plaintiff initiated an action against Sahlen Packing Company, the premises owner, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Sahlen subsequently impleaded Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, the plaintiff's employer. Sahlen appealed an order granting summary judgment to Niagara Mohawk, which resulted in the dismissal of the third-party complaint under the 1996 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Sahlen contended that these amendments violated due process, constituted an unfair taking, impaired contractual obligations, and should not be applied retroactively, also arguing a triable issue of fact existed concerning grave injury. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent and severe facial disfigurement as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that the amendments applied as the accident occurred post-enactment and the action commenced in March 1997. Additionally, Sahlen’s constitutional challenges to the amendments were deemed without merit.
Hilbert v. Sahlen Packing Co. 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
The plaintiff sustained personal injuries after being ejected from a bucket truck while removing a utility pole. The plaintiff initiated an action against Sahlen Packing Company, the premises owner, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Sahlen subsequently impleaded Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, the plaintiff's employer. Sahlen appealed an order granting summary judgment to Niagara Mohawk, which resulted in the dismissal of the third-party complaint under the 1996 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Sahlen contended that these amendments violated due process, constituted an unfair taking, impaired contractual obligations, and should not be applied retroactively, also arguing a triable issue of fact existed concerning grave injury. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff did not suffer a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that the amendments applied as the accident occurred post-enactment and the action commenced in March 1997. Additionally, Sahlen’s constitutional challenges to the amendments were deemed without merit.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.