CompFox AI Summary
The claimant, a former Assistant Attorney-General, alleged blindness resulted from an eye injury sustained in 1957 while employed by the New York State Attorney-General. He filed a claim for compensation in 1972, contending he provided notice to his employer and that an advance payment of compensation tolled the two-year Statute of Limitations. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding it barred by untimely filing. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support advance payment within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law, section 28, due to lack of employer knowledge of a work-related injury or direct medical care. The court also rejected the claimant's other contentions regarding adding documents to the record and his right to counsel.
Quinn v. State 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 claimant, a former Assistant Attorney-General, alleged blindness resulted from an eye injury sustained in 1957 while employed by the New York State Attorney-General. He filed a claim for compensation in 1972, contending he provided notice to his employer and that an advance payment of compensation tolled the two-year Statute of Limitations. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding it barred by untimely filing. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support advance payment within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law, section 28, due to lack of employer knowledge of a work-related injury or direct medical care. The court also rejected the claimant's other contentions regarding adding documents to the record and his right to counsel.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.