Subscribe to feed Latest Entries

What Does Third Party Liability Mean in Worker’s Compensation Cases?

Posted by SFSM
SFSM
SFSM has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Monday, 21 July 2014
in SFSM

Workers who have sustained an on-the-job injury or illness are entitled to workers’ compensation to cover the medical bills and lost wages that result from their injuries. However, workers compensation benefits do not cover an individual’s long-term monetary loss, pain and suffering, or additional damages that may have resulted from particularly reckless conduct.  As a matter of fact, state law actually limits most workers’ compensation payments. Furthermore, individuals who accept workers’ compensation benefits forfeit their right to sue their employer for their job related injury or illness.

Third-Party Liability

Third-party liability provides an additional remedy, separate from workers’ compensation benefits, to individuals who have sustained a job related injury or illness. A third-party is anyone other than a worker’s employer or co-worker. Third-party liability occurs when an individual who sustains a job-related injury or illness sues someone other than his or her employer for damages.

Common third-party defendants include, but are not limited to:

  • Manufacturers of workplace equipment, tools, or materials, whose products may have caused or intensified an individual’s work related injury or illness;
  • Landlords or business owners who fail to keep their premises clear of hazards, thus resulting in an injury or illness to a worker who visits the premise as part of his or her job;
  • Automobile drivers who cause an accident, which results in an injury to a worker who was on the road as part of his or her job.

 

Will a claim for third-party liability affect the status of my workers compensation benefits?

No. All awards received in third-party liability suits are separate and distinct from workers’ compensation benefits. This means that injured or ill workers can receive an award based off of their third-party liability claim and still retain their workers compensation benefits.  Additionally, the right to bring a claim for third-party liability also extends to the surviving families of a deceased individual in cases of work related wrongful deaths.

Why should you pursue a third-party liability claim?

Since workers’ compensation benefits generally do not account for all of the cost associated with a work related injury or illness, pursuing a third party liability claim affords the victims of a work related injury or illness an additional remedy which may fully cover the costs of the of injury and lost wages.

 

 

Hits: 15 0 Comments
0 votes

100th Anniversary of New York Worker's Compensation Law

Posted by SFSM
SFSM
SFSM has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 04 June 2014
in Workers' Compensation

2014 marks the 100th anniversary of the enactment of New York’s Workers’ (then Workmens’) Compensation Law.

The horrific Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire moved New York’s legislature and Governor to enact the first in the nation workers’ compensation statute in 1911 after 146 employees died due to poor employer practices and unsafe working conditions. The law represented a historic tradeoff between workers and employers, whereby workers were assured of prompt wage replacement and medical treatment coverage in connection with workplace injuries regardless of fault, and employers were shielded from lawsuits that may require them to pay large amounts for pain, suffering, wrongful deaths and other causes of action.

The 1911 law was struck down by New York’s Court of Appeals which found that the statute violated New York’s constitutional protection of employer’s due process rights. It took an amendment to New York’s constitution before the workers’ compensation statute could be reenacted in 1914. Over its contentious 100-year history, the New York Workers’ Compensation Law and the workers’ compensation system have seen many dramatic changes, but they have assured compensation for millions of injured workers and their families while at the same time protecting New York employers from ruinous lawsuits.

Reforms Under the Business Relief Act

In 2013 Governor Andrew Cuomo supported the enactment of a number of reforms to the workers’ compensation system, apparently to cut costs for employers and carriers, without decreasing benefits to claimants. To do so the Governor successfully bypassed the usual process for legislative change to the law by including the proposed reforms in the New York State 2013/2014 Budget, which was due to be enacted by April 1, 2013. The reforms, enacted March 29, 2013, are contained in that part of the budget bill referred to as the Business Relief Act.

The Business Relief Act made many changes, including raising the minimum weekly compensation rate to the lesser of $150.00 or the claimant’s actual average weekly wage for injuries occurring on or after May 1, 2013, an increase from the $100.00 per week minimum enacted in 2007. Based on the 2007 indexing of the maximum compensation rate to the state average weekly wage, the maximum rate for accidents occurring on or after 7/1/2013 was raised to $803.21, more than double the maximum rate in 2007.

Worker's Compensation is an intricate and complex field of law. If you have been injured while working, contact an experienced worker’s compensation attorney today. A skilled attorney can afford you the representation you deserve and ensure your legal rights are protected. 

 

 

New York Workers Compensation Attorneys

 

Hits: 156 0 Comments
0 votes

Applications for Disability Retirement

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Monday, 19 May 2014
in Disability Pensions

Applications for disability retirement are receiving an increased level of scrutiny from the NYS State retirement system. They are being meticulously reviewed to find any technical flaw that could allow the Comptroller’s Office to deny the application. Recently an officer, approved for accidental disability retirement and removed from the employer’s payroll, had his award rescinded. The State claimed a routine audit revealed the officer failed to give timely written notice to the employer stating that an accident had taken place.  The law states:


  (a)   No such application shall be approved, unless the member or some other person on his behalf shall have filed written notice in the office of the comptroller within ninety days after the occurrence which is the basis for the disability incurred in the performance of duty, setting forth:

       1. The time, date and place of such occurrence, and

       2. The particulars thereof, and

       3. The nature and extent of the member's injuries, and

       4. The alleged disability.

(b) The notice herein required need not be given:

       1.  If notice of such occurrence shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of the workers' compensation law of any state within which participating       employer shall have its employees located or performing functions and duties within the normal scope of their employment, NYCLS Retire&SS § 363-c.

The NYS Workers’ Compensation Law states: notice of an injury or death for which compensation is payable under this chapter shall be given to the employer within thirty days after the accident causing such injury, and also in case of the death of the employee resulting from such injury, within thirty days after such death. Such notice may be given by any person claiming to be entitled to compensation, or by someone on his behalf. The notice shall be in writing, and contain the name and address of the employee, and state in ordinary language the time, place, nature and cause of the injury, and be signed by him or by a person on his behalf, NYCLS WorkComp § 18.

Injured officers do not routinely notify the comptroller’s office after an injury takes place. All members of the Police Conference are covered by the NYS Workers’ Compensation Law. Most departments have injured employee paperwork that is completed when the officer is injured. The case law is very clear that the burden is on the injured officer to prove written notice was given within 30 days of the accident to the employer. A mistake or misinterpretation of the law by the officer or the employer will not excuse this requirement. If, for some reason, written notice was not submitted to the employer within 30 days, notice should be submitted with proof of submittal to the NYS Comptroller’s office within 90 days.

My office was able to reverse the rescission of the aforementioned officer’s disability pension by proving that written notice was given to the employer on a timely basis, arguing that the “line-of-duty” paperwork filled out by the officer could be used as evidence of written notice of his injury.

Obviously, to prevent any question of timely filing of paperwork, it is always better to consult an attorney as soon as possible after a line-of-duty injury occurs, preferably within the 30 day time period. When an officer is injured they should not leave things to chance. It is common for an injury to be sustained many years before the physical need to retire arises. I personally have handled cases where the injury was sustained more than 20 years before the officer actually retired. What seems today to be minor injury can turn out to be quite severe many years later.



Speak with an attorney who specializes in these matters immediately. The only cost is your time, the consultation is free.

Hits: 168 0 Comments
0 votes

Availability of Seaman’s Rights to Marine Unit Personnel

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 01 May 2014
in Workers' Compensation


Police officers assigned to the Marine Unit are entitled to NYS Workers Compensation benefits as are all employees of Police Departments in Suffolk County. However those who are assigned to a vessel may elect to pursue a civil lawsuit under maritime law. The US Supreme Court in
McDermott International v. Wilander 498 U.S. 337 (1991) defined a “seaman” as a worker who has an employment related connection to a vessel in navigation and who also contributes to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission. This broad definition means that “seaman status” is not limited to sailors on the high seas who crew commercial cargo vessels, but is sufficiently broad to include harbor workers of various types working on vessels of various descriptions, including employees assigned to vessels of a Police Marine Unit.

 

A person who qualifies for seaman status is afforded three important rights:

1) The right to sue the Municipality under a Federal Statute known as the “Jones Act” for all injuries caused by negligence

2) The right to sue the Municipality for all injuries caused by the “Seaworthiness” of the vessel

3) The right to sue for “Maintenance and Cure”

 

Monetary damages recovered under the “Jones Act” and Seaworthiness include economic losses consisting of past and future loss of wages, fringe and pension losses, and past and future pain and suffering. Compensation afforded under Seaman’s Rights typically exceeds those provided under Workers Compensation. To determine which route is most beneficial to you and to determine if you qualify for seaman’s status, a consultation with a “Proctor in Admiralty” – which is an attorney who specializes in Admiralty and Maritime Law, is highly recommended.

 

A decision to accept traditional Worker’s Compensation Benefits can be considered an election of remedies. If an Officer is injured at work, and the assignment was in any way related to the activities of a Marine Bureau Vessel all options should be explored. Find out what your options are immediately. 

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 230 0 Comments
0 votes

The Retirement System’s New Stance On Cervical and Lumbar Fusion Surgery

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Monday, 14 April 2014
in Disability Pensions

 

 

By: Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.  

The New York State Retirement System has recently, and radically, changed its disability program and this change comes at the expense of its members. Based on an internal Medical Board decision, the Retirement System can now require a member to undergo a single-level cervical or lumbar fusion surgery prior to being approved for a disability pension. This position can and will have a major impact on disability applicants moving forward.

For many years, the Retirement System, confirmed by the state’s highest courts, has required members applying for disability retirement to undergo “reasonably safe” medical procedures which can restore them to full duty. Traditionally, this standard applied to areas of the body such as knees, shoulders, hands, etc. Frankly, this standard was never previously considered unreasonable by members or their attorneys. If a relatively routine and safe surgery, which could remedy a member’s condition, existed, the member was expected to have the surgery and proceed back to work if post-operative care went well.

Until last year, the Retirement System did not consider cervical or lumbar fusions to be “reasonably safe” procedures and, therefore, members applying for disability benefits did not have to fear being denied by the Retirement System because they did not want to undergo these highly invasive procedures. Unfortunately, this has been officially changed.

Following the Retirement System’s decision to consider spinal fusion surgery to be “reasonably safe” procedures, I, along with three other respected disability attorneys, petitioned the Retirement System to re-visit and reconsider its decision. While the System did re-visit the issue, it has remained steadfast in its determination.

We must now litigate this matter on a case-by-case basis before the courts over the next several months and determine whether the judges agree with the Retirement System. However, if you suffer from a cervical and/or lumbar spine impairment, your doctor has recommended or discussed spinal fusion surgery with you and you do not wish to undergo such surgery, you should consider the following:

  • Have your doctor clearly document the risks associated with the surgery and that your physician has discussed these risks with you.

  • Clearly document the risk factors you have considered in making your decision not to undergo the surgical procedure.

  • If you are not a surgical candidate, this should be clearly documented in your treating physician’s notes. (This can include any medical condition which precludes surgery).

  • If you have an adverse personal experience with surgery, this should also be documented at the time of your application for disability retirement benefits. (Did you have a negative physical reaction during a prior surgery? Did your close friend or family member have a fusion surgery with an adverse outcome?)

  • If there is an extraneous reason you do not wish to undergo fusion surgery, this should also be documented (single parent, sole caregiver to children and do not wish to face the risks of surgery)

While we may not like the Retirement System’s stance on the spinal fusion issue, we must start to deal with it and protect our members. In that vein, just because the Retirement System “generally” considers single-level spinal fusion surgery to be reasonably safe, that does not mean that it is specifically safe for you. Nor does it mean that you are necessarily “unreasonable” in refusing such a surgery. Documenting why you would refuse the surgery is now paramount.

As always, if you have any questions, issues or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (631) 240-0811, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or toll free at the number listed below. 



Hits: 594 0 Comments
0 votes

RFL Interview: Sean Patrick Riordan of Fealgood Foundation

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Monday, 17 March 2014
in News

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 285 0 Comments
0 votes

Pronto of LI, People helping People

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 07 February 2014
in Philanthropy
Dear Sherman, Federman, Sambur & McIntyre,

On behalf of the Board of Directors, Staff and Volunteers of Pronto of Long Island, Inc., we would like to thank you for your generous support of our community outreach center. Because of you, we were able to serve over 65,000 Long Islanders in need.

Thank you for supporting our mission to feed, clothe and serve the needy in our neighboring communities.

Thank you again for your kindness.

Sincerely,
Kelly Ann McLoughlin-Fisher
Executive Director
Tags: Untagged
Hits: 363 0 Comments
0 votes

Pronto of Long Island Inc. - People Helping People

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 16 August 2013
in Philanthropy
Dear Sherman, Federman, Sambur, & McIntyre, LLP,

On behalf of the Board of Directors, Staff, and Volunteers of Pronto of Long Island Inc., we would like to thank you for your generous support of our community outreach center. Because of you, we were able to serve over 65,000 Long Islanders in need.

Thank you again for supporting our mission to feed, clothe, and serve the needy in our neighboring communities.

Thank you again for your kindness.

Sincerely Yours,

Belinda Alvarez-Groneman

President

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 763 0 Comments
0 votes

2012 CORRECTION OFFICERS’ ¾’s YEAR IN REVIEW

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 26 October 2012
in Workers' Compensation

By: Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.

    This year has been a particularly slow year for Appellate Division cases involving Correction Officers’ ¾’s benefits. No ground breaking changes in the law, either good or bad, have occurred in 2012. But, there are a few important cases that should remind officers of some of the very basic points we preach each time we visit a prison, jail or union meeting. Below are a few examples of cases and their important findings:

-    Stimmer v. DiNapoli – in this case the Correction Officer testified that he had been injured as he was escorting inmates “up a flight of stairs when the lights went out in the stairway and one of the inmates intentionally stuck out her leg and tripped him” causing him to become permanently disabled from Correction Officer work.

Clearly, the above should be a 3/4’s fact pattern. However, the Retirement System denied the claim and the Court upheld the denial. Why you ask? Because the officer failed to put the exact facts of his injury in the Injured Employee Report that he filed at the time of his injury. The Court specifically notes that the Correction Officer “did not include any reference to being tripped by an inmate in either the incident report prepared the day of his fall or his application for benefits.” The CO then testified that he failed to include the necessary information on his Injured Employee Report because he was “rushed to complete the paperwork prior to being sent for medical attention.”

Morale of the story, CO’s must be clear how the inmate caused their injury in the initial, contemporaneous paperwork following a work accident. DO NOT BE RUSHED INTO SUBMITTING INCOMPLETE INITIAL PAPERWORK as it may mean the difference between a 33% disability pension and a 75% disability pension. Secondary lesson, CO’s should seek counsel prior to submitting an application for ¾’s to ensure that the wording on their application is sufficient to meet their legal burden.
 
-    White v. DiNapoli – following in line with the important Kaler decision from last year, the Court has made clear once again that injuries that are caused by negligently performed routine chores by inmates will not be granted ¾’s benefits. In White the CO was supervising inmates as they stripped wax off a dirty floor. As the CO turned to inspect a sink which had just been cleaned by inmates, he slipped on the “slippery stripping chemicals” and tore his rotator cuff trying to keep his balance. The Court held that there was no “direct inmate interaction” which caused the CO’s injuries and therefore White was not entitled to a ¾’s benefit. The Court reiterated its stance that the ¾’s bill is meant to protect CO’s from the inherent dangers of the position, not to protect them against routine inmate chores, even when improperly performed.

Morale of this story is, if you believe that an inmate intentionally injures you, you must be clear from the outset that this is your interpretation of the occurrence. Having worked with Correction Officers for quite some time now I know that inmates can try and injure you in “tricky” ways; sometimes negligently performing even routine chores to disguise their intent. If you have solid rationale to believe you were intentionally harmed by an inmate action say so in the initial reports. Neither the Retirement System nor the Court will adopt your later developed feeling that the inmate hurt you on purpose.

Much like last year, the basic premise of the 2012 Correction Officers’ ¾’s Case Law Review is:

When you are injured take your time and properly fill out the Injured Employee paperwork, specifically describe how the inmate caused you to be injured and do not submit incomplete paperwork or allow others to fill it out for you. While I certainly understand that CO’s often have supervisors demanding that paperwork be done immediately, and often while you’re in extreme pain prior to having proper medical care, please remember that you also have rights and they should not be superseded for expedience. Failure to properly document your injury can needlessly cost you a ¾’s disability pension.

As always, if you need anything, please don’t hesitate to reach out at (212) 612-3198 or on my cell (646) 831-6229.

Have a great Holiday Season!

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1217 0 Comments

Suffolk County Probation Office Association

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 28 September 2012
in Philanthropy

August 24, 2012


Dear Colleagues and Friends,

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for supporting The Suffolk County Probation Officers Association 8th Annual Golfing Outing to benefit our scholarship fund. Due to your generosity, this year's event was a tremendous success.

On behalf of the Suffolk County Probation Officers Association ad the SCPOA membership, thank you again for your support.

Sincerely,

Linda Miller, SCPOA Golf Chairperson
Kelly Wright, SCPOA Golf Chairperson

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1379 0 Comments

Ground Zero Cancer Victims Happy But Frustrated

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 12 September 2012
in News

By SYDNEY LUPKIN
Sept. 11, 2012

The World Trade Center Health Program will now provide treatment and compensation for first responders from 9/11 victims who were diagnosed with cancer after inhaling toxic dust at Ground Zero, program administrator Dr. John Howard announced Monday. But many first responders say they consider the expansion bittersweet.

Cancer had not previously been part of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which set aside $4.3 billion to treat and otherwise compensate 9/11 victims. It included asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome and lower back pain, but not cancers because the cancer link to the dust cloud and debris that hung over lower Manhattan was unclear.

"They're only about ten years too late," said Jeffrey Stroehlein, who retired from the New York Fire Department in May 2011, two months after he was diagnosed with a type of brain cancer that affects the central nervous system. "I'm watching people die of these diseases, these ailments, as they go on and play ping pong," he said of government officials arguing over whether cancer should be included in Zadroga Act coverage.

Stroehlein began having headaches nearly ten years after he worked at Ground Zero, clearing debris with the rest of the first responders after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. He was diagnosed with cancer in March 2011, and underwent chemotherapy every other week for 14 weeks, followed by an intense 8-day round of chemo.

"It's kind of scary I was one of the lucky ones," he said.

Stroehlein said his highest cancer-related bill to date was more than $220,000, and he couldn't imagine what a first responder would do without good health coverage, which he was fortunate enough to have. But the Zadroga Act would not have been able to pay for his treatment because cancer wasn't covered.

Stroehlein's last four MRIs have shown no signs of the cancer, but he doesn't like to use the phrase "cancer-free."

"I'm just a piece of the puzzle, one of thousands of first responders," he said, adding that he thinks some people probably had to foreclose on their homes to pay for cancer treatment. "Who's going to get your house back? ... Most people don't have that money lying around."

Tom Neal, a now-retired New York Police Department detective, says he's lucky his wife convinced him to purchase a smart health care plan, which covered the doctors he needed to treat his cancer. "I may be the president of the house, but my wife is the CEO."

Neal worked on the first floor of police headquarters in downtown Manhattan on 9/11. He said he heard an early bulletin about the attack on the radio and was able see the first World Trade Center tower on fire from the back of the NYPD building. And then there was the dust cloud that included asbestos, lead, glass, metal and other toxins.

"People were coming back to the headquarters, and it was all throughout the building and on all the floors," he said of the dust.

Neal said NYPD headquarters' air conditioning and heating system vents weren't cleaned until 2005, so while he sat at his desk processing DNA to help identify victims, he was breathing in carcinogens for years. He began having sinus and breathing problems as early as 2002, and doctors found a tumor in 2010 between his eyes that grew into the frontal lobe of his brain.

 He said he'd had several previous injuries covered by Worker's Compensation, but he had to get cancer treatment under his own healthcare plan. He went to a World Trade Center Health Program center for an initial exam, but they said he couldn't get treatment because he had cancer. Instead, he had to battle with insurance companies and stress about bills and staying within his health insurance company's network.

"It's not about the money," Neal said. "It's about the agencies and the companies that should stand up for their employees and take care of them."

After several surgeries and treatments, he says he's doing "really well" but battling some side effects of radiation.

He said he's optimistic about the Zadroga Act Expansion, but also frustrated by the slow response because he thinks agencies -- not the individual doctors -- have been "discriminating" against those with certain illnesses.

He said he only personally knows one other officer who was diagnosed with cancer after the World Trade Center attack -- and that person sat at his old desk on the first floor and died of the same kind of cancer he had.

"Two people work in one special room in One Police Plaza got the rarest form of cancer," he said. "That can't be coincidental."

And doctors say it probably isn't.

Oladele Ogunseitan said the government's announcement -- the first acknowledgement linking the toxic dust to cancer -- wouldn't surprise his colleagues because asbestos was in the World Trade Center and is a known carcinogen. Ogunseitan chairs the Department of Population Health and Disease Prevention at the University of California, Irvine.

"The World Trade Center building was constructed at a time that asbestos was used in building materials," he said. "By some estimates, 400 tons of asbestos was used in the building, and asbestos-containing fire retardant was used up to the 64th floor of the building."

Ogunseitan attributed the government's lag time to litigation, and said assessing the chemical composition of airborne debris immediately could have led to cancer-preventative measures.

"Knowing sooner might have helped in people's planning to some extent," Ogunseitan said. "[It] would potentially increase life expectancy and delay disease."

Dr. Anthony Robbins, who co-edits the Journal of Public Health Policy, said a latent period between exposure and cancer development -- like what Stroehlein and Neal experienced -- is to be expected. Leukemia develops first, after about 10 years, and mesothelioma can take up to 40 years to appear.

Overall, about 40,000 Sept. 11 responders and survivors receive monitoring and 20,000 get treatment for their illnesses as part of the Zadroga Act's health program. The FealGood Foundation, founded by first responder John Feal, lists 341 9/11-related cancer deaths to date among first responders.

And as more cancer victims come forward, advocates say the value of the fund and the length of time it will be available must be expanded. Right now, it will only last through 2016.

"It means a great deal to men and women knowing they can go to treatment facilities and get medical care for free," said Sean Riordan of the FealGood Foundation. "It's a bittersweet victory because these men and women will have their cancers regarded as caused by the work they did at ground zero, but there is now a greater pool to share in the same pot."

Dr. Heather Hawthorn, a resident in the ABC News Medical Unit, contributed reporting.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/911-cancer-victims-zadroga-expansion-world-trade-center/story?id=17204834#.UFCzy1E_dl8

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1307 0 Comments

NYComplaw.com - 50 Types Of Cancer To Be Covered Under Zadroga Act

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 11 September 2012
in News

Sherman, Federman, Sambur, & McIntyre, LLP's own Sean Riordan addresses the significance of Zadroga's success.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1203 0 Comments

Zadroga ruling on 9/11 responders expected to include cancer

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Monday, 10 September 2012
in News

Originally published: September 9, 2012 6:01 PM
Updated: September 9, 2012 10:04 PM
By RIDGELY OCHS  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Worry and wait.

Almost 11 years after 9/11, first responders, many still dealing with stubbornly persistent illnesses, say they worry their health will only get worse. Cancer is the fear that stalks them.

"It weighs very heavy," said Glen Klein, 54, of Centereach, a retired NYPD detective who worked more than 800 hours at the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan. "When I wake up in the morning and I don't feel well, the first thing that goes through my mind is 'Oh, I got cancer.'"

Those who already have the disease fear they could leave their families with unpaid bills.

Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, is expected soon to issue a final rule on which cancers will be covered under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, enacted January 2011.

In June, Howard issued a proposed rule expanding the list of illnesses associated with Ground Zero exposure to include about 50 cancers.

Sean Riordan, general counsel for the FealGood Foundation, a first-responders' advocacy group, said Sunday he had heard "all the cancers look good for addition, but nothing is final until NIOSH says it's final."

Under the Zadroga law, $2.8 billion was set aside to compensate people made ill by exposure to toxins at the site. Another $1.5 billion has been allocated over five years to fund the World Trade Center Health Program, which treats and monitors about 40,000 first responders.

How many first responders suffer from cancer is unclear. Last September, the first major cancer study of city firefighters who worked at Ground Zero after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks found they were 19 percent more likely to have cancer than those who weren't there.

FealGood Foundation founder John Feal said his group has compiled an unofficial list of close to 400 responders with the disease. That number is likely to grow, given that cancer can take decades to develop and an estimated 40,000 people were exposed.

Ken George, 48, of North Babylon, who worked 12- to 16-hour days for months on the pile for the city highway department, said that when he went to a picnic for first responders on Long Island last year, there were five or six widows who had lost husbands to cancer.

"This year there were 10 to 15," he said. "I was like, 'Wow, how many are getting sick?' "

Manhattan attorney Michael Barasch said about 250 of the 5,000 first responders he represents have cancer.

"I'm trying to manage expectations and tell them that not every cancer will be found admissible," he said. "Common sense tells me that probably respiratory and blood cancers will be covered. But nobody can give out any awards until we know whether the cancers are admissible. And they've got to make sure there's enough money."

About 300 first responders have submitted eligibility forms to a special master of the fund for diseases other than cancer now covered under the law that are in the process of being reviewed, according to Allison Price, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice. "We expect more people to file as the fund progresses -- it is hard to speculate, but thousands of additional claimants will most likely apply," she said.

Some are concerned the fund could be quickly bankrupt if all cancers are covered, although New York members of Congress have vowed they will fight for more money if it's needed.

For former city firefighter Jeff Stroehlein, 48, of Babylon, having all cancers covered is about the government doing what is right by the people who put their lives on the line.

In March 2011, Stroehlein was diagnosed with a rare lymphoma in his brain. He underwent months of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant last August. His last four MRIs have showed no sign of the cancer, he said.

"This isn't just for me," he said of the coverage. "This is for everybody else. First of all, I'm lucky enough to be talking to you. But what about the guy who could lose his house trying to pay his medical bills?"

Feal described a 47-year-old construction worker -- a nonsmoker -- who had worked on the pile and developed lung cancer. He had no health benefits, couldn't work, acquired a mountain of bills, lost his house and had to move in with family members.

"We need to remember that having cancer added [to Zadroga coverage] won't save anybody's life," he said. "It's not a magic pill. But it will ease the financial burden and that's the right thing to do."

Chris Baumann, 49, of Lindenhurst, a city police officer in the traffic division who worked at Ground Zero on 9/11, said he has had precancerous polyps in his colon and granulomas in his thyroid. "Things keep popping up," he said. "I'm always waiting for the big 'C' when I go to see the doctor."

Knowing cancer will be covered would give him a measure of peace.

"I'm not looking to get rich," he said. "I just want to live."

Source: http://www.newsday.com/911-anniversary/zadroga-ruling-on-9-11-responders-expected-to-include-cancer-1.3986230

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1233 0 Comments

Justice Within Reach - The Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc.

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 07 September 2012
in Philanthropy

August 21, 2012

Dear Sherman, Federman, Sambur, & McIntyre, LLP:

The Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc. ("WJCNY") would like to thank you for your generous contribution to our First Annual Fundraiser. WJCNY represents the merger of Farmworker Legal Services of New York and the Workers' Rights Law Center. Your donation helped make our event a success!

The creation of WJCNY builds on decades of providing quality legal services to agricultural and other low-wage workers and advocating for stronger worker protections. Our focus areas that include human trafficking, workplace safety, domestic violence, membership, litigation, and advocacy aim to ensure that worker communities have access to justice to vindicate their workplace rights are empowered to achieve institutional change.

Your donation will make a critical difference as the WJCNY continues to expand our work throughout the state. We are committed to putting your contribution to good use and we thank you again for your support.

Sincerely,

Milan Bhatt
Co-Executive Director

The Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc. is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. No goods or services were received in exchange for this contribution.
Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1170 0 Comments

Inmate Related Injury? – Explain Exactly How!

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 23 August 2012
in Workers' Compensation

By Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.

I have had the pleasure of working with Nassau County Correction Officers for many years now, fighting for ¾’s benefits when CO’s are permanently injured in the course of their duties due to inmate action. During these years I have never seen the Retirement System as aggressive in denying CO disability retirement benefits as it has been in the past several months. The bases for these denials is the Retirement System’s updated “inmate relation” theory. While the law itself has not changed, the stringency with which “inmate relation” is examined has. Bottom line is, when you are injured due to the actions of an inmate, specifically describe how the inmate caused your particular injury.

The impetus behind the new interpretation is a 2011 Appellate Division case, Kaler v. DiNapoli. In Kaler, a correction officer slipped and fell while walking in a mess hall in the prison. He fell due to a wet floor that had been recently mopped by an inmate. While this fact pattern has never been great for ¾’s purposes, it is the court’s wording in Kaler that is more important. The Appellate Division stated that the CO ¾’s benefit was originally passed in order to protect CO’s from “injuries incurred due to inmate-on-inmate altercations and CO-inmate altercations.” The court specifically states that the ¾’s benefit is available to CO’s due to the “daily contact with persons who are dangerous and profoundly anti-social.” Therefore, the Retirement System will look to whether such “dangerous and profoundly anti-social” behavior led to the CO’s injury before granting the ¾’s. Clearly, in Kaler, the court denied the ¾’s because the inmate action that caused the CO’s injury, i.e. mopping the floor, is not the type of action that the ¾’s protects against and instead is merely a “benign chore routinely performed in penal institutions by inmates”

In recent months several CO’s have been denied their ¾’s benefit because of this new interpretation and because of the wording (or lack thereof) placed on their Injured Employee Reports following an occurrence. For example, a CO was recently denied his ¾’s because he wrote, “while restraining a violent inmate, slipped and fell injuring knee.” In past years, this write up was sufficient for ¾’s purposes, as the injury occurred in the course of restraint. However, under the current reading of the statute after Kaler, the Retirement System wants to know the exact inmate action that caused the particular injury in order to establish that the “dangerous and anti-social behavior” protected by 607-c was in fact the cause of your injury. So, using the example above, a better write up would read: “While restraining violent inmate, did place both arms around such inmate in attempt to control him, inmate continued to struggle causing both the inmate and myself to fall to floor, striking such floor and injuring my knee.” This write up fully establishes that the inmate action of “struggling” caused the fall and injury.

Here’s the good news, this new interpretation of 607-c is not the “death knell” of ¾’s benefits for CO’s. It simply means that CO’s must FULLY explain how the inmate caused your specific injury. If you do that, nothing will change regarding your eligibility for ¾’s. As always, if you need assistance filling out your Injured Employee Report do note hesitate to contact your union representatives or me directly.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1312 0 Comments

Suffolk County Police: Superior Officers Association

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 10 August 2012
in Philanthropy

Edward McIntyre
Sherman, Federman, Sambur, & McIntyre LLP
8 East Main Street
Bay Shore, NY 11706


Dear Ed,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your generosity and support for the Cocktail and Dinner sponsorship and golf participation at our 15th Annual Golf Outing held on July 31st at Willow Creek Golf & Country Club in Mt. Sinai.

The event was a huge success and [we are] looking forward to seeing you again next year.

Thank you again,

Ken Macarthur, 2nd Pct. Trustee
Golf Committee Chairman

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1524 0 Comments

SHOULD YOU APPEAL THE DENIAL OF YOUR DISABILITY APPLICATION? Choose Wisely.

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Monday, 11 June 2012
in Workers' Compensation

By:  Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.  |  Sherman, Federman, Sambur & McIntyre, LLP.


    It is unmistakable that municipal pensions have been under attack for several years. It is no secret that several elected officials have taken aim at the defined benefit plans paid by city and state pension systems. Various media sources have also sought to turn public opinion on the pension issue, running story after story on the "need" for pension reform and the "positive attributes" of defined contribution plans. While this article isn't meant to tackle this hotly debated topic, the impact that the general public discourse has had on disability systems cannot be ignored.

    Newspaper articles regarding disability recipients daily activities have graced occasional front pages, missing the ultimate point of whether the individual's impairments prevent their ability to perform the full duties required of their job. Despite the articles' inaccurate consideration of the proper legal standard of analysis, pension system's responses have been clear; even legitimately disabled workers can and will be denied their disability pensions.

    With greater denial at the application stage many workers will now be faced with the difficult decision of whether to proceed to an Article 78 appeal and ask a Supreme Court Judge to overrule the decision of the pension system. Why is the decision so difficult? Because a number of factors must be weighed, and weighed competently.

    First, courts have traditionally been reluctant to overturn the decisions of administrative agencies. The law generally holds the administrative agency to be in the best position to make decisions within its specialty and therefore gives deference to its determinations. Article 78 proceedings reflect this deference by placing a very high burden on petitioners (the worker) in trying to overturn an agency decision. To win an Article 78 the worker must show (1) that the agency determination contained an error of law, or (2) was arbitrary or capricious, or (3) was an abuse of discretion. While this may sound simple enough, this high standard makes these cases very difficult to win.

    Another important factor to consider is the type of denial you may have received.  The pension board may deny an Accidental Disability Retirement ("ADR") application for three reasons, (1) You are not permanently incapacitated from your full duties and responsibilities, or (2) you were not injured due to an "accident", or (3) your disability is not due to your on the job accident, this is generally called a "causal relationship" finding.  How your application was denied will assist in determining what direction your case will proceed.

    Whether you sustained an on the job "accident" is something that you should seek counsel about. While the courts have defined what an "accident" means, "a sudden, fortuitous mischance, outside the risks of one's duties and injurious in impact", retirement systems have been far less definitive on what scenarios actually meet this definition. To say the law surrounding what constitutes an "accident" is fuzzy is an understatement. However, some occurrences are simply not accidents under the law and competent legal counsel can guide you on whether or not to pursue a denial on this ground. If you have a sound basis for believing that an occurrence is an accident however, this is the best way to win an Article 78 appeal.

    Permanent incapacity and causality are issues that are much more difficult to win at the Article 78 phase. The courts have made clear, they will not substitute their own opinion for that of the Medical Board or the Board of Trustees. In permanency cases this means that even if multiple medical opinions state that you are permanently incapacitated from the job, as long as the Medical Board bases its decision on "some credible evidence and is not irrational," its determination will be upheld. Credible evidence has been defined as "evidence that proceeds from a credible source and reasonably tends to support the proposition for which it is offered." This means, simply put, a Medical Board's examination and subsequent opinion regarding permanent incapacity is almost, by itself, "credible evidence." This simple fact makes appealing the Medical Board's negative determination on permanence almost fruitless.

    I say "almost fruitless" because over the past several years the courts have handed down several decisions which have found the Medical Board's determination to lack "credible evidence." The basis for the majority of these decisions point to the various Medical Boards' conclusory opinions and lack of articulation in its findings.  For instance, a recent Supreme Court, Kings County decision stated:

"the Medical Board must do more than simply identify reports and tests and state its conclusion; it must address the evidence before it and explain why the evidence it discounts is not valid, and why the evidence it relies upon is more persuasive, explaining why the opinions and diagnoses that are relied upon are incorrect."  

    As the Medical Boards continue to resort to simply stating conclusory findings without articulation of its rationale Article 78's remain a viable option for those that have been found not permanently incapacitated. Where substantial medical evidence exists that an individual is permanently incapacitated and the Medical Board fails to properly analyze the medical evidence before it, the courts will continue to overturn the permanent incapacity decisions.   

    Courts are equally reluctant to overturn "causality" decisions made by a Board of Trustees and will not substitute its theory of causality for that made by the Board. Frequently the best way to win cases in this area is by claiming "error of law." Where the  Medical Board finds that "degenerative conditions" or "pre-existing conditions" are the cause of the worker's permanent incapacity they must also consider whether a subsequent on the job accident "permanently aggravated or exacerbated the underlying dormant condition." This means that even when an individual has an underlying medical condition, if such individual sustains an on-the-job accident which makes that condition disabling, the accident is the cause of the disability. This is a legal burden that many pension boards do not address when making causality decision and can be a viable avenue for appeal.  

    Additionally, "presumptive bills" regarding the World Trade Center, heart bills and lung bills require the pension system to rebut causality, placing the burden on the pension system to disprove that the job caused such impairments. Frequently the system fails to meet its legal burden in this area.

    Two final factors should be considered in determining whether to proceed with an Article 78 appeal. First, and what many litigants do not understand, is that courts have the right to "reverse" or "remand" a decision. In cases where permanent incapacity and causality, it is infrequent that a court will reverse the findings of the agency. This is because the court would have to find "as a matter of law" that an individual is disabled from full duty or that a particular occurrence is the cause of the disability. This leads to many of the decisions being "remanded" to the pension system for further processing. In this scenario a "win" merely allows the individual the ability to again be heard before the pension board, an outcome that not all are happy with.

    Lastly, Article 78's can be very expensive endeavors. From legal fees (which sometimes are exorbitant)  to filing fees and binding requirements, Article 78 appeals can run into thousands of dollars of expenses. Far to many cases with unrealistic opportunity of success are taken up to Article 78 appeal, wasting the individuals money and creating bad case law for all. Before you jump into an Article 78, have a frank and realistic conversation with your attorney about the possibilities of success.

    As always, if you have any questions about Article 78's, or any questions regarding your disability rights, please do not hesitate to contact Sherman, Federman, Sambur, & McIntyre at (866) 557-7500.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1435 0 Comments

Work-related injuries should always be covered by the employer’s Workers’ Compensation insurance carrier, not your private health insurance company.

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 29 May 2012
in Workers' Compensation

In the unfortunate event that an injury occurs while working, the first (and most obvious) step is to seek medical treatment, however, it is equally important to make sure that the treatment is billed to the proper insurance carrier.   Many injured workers have their treatment covered by their private health insurance when an on-the-job injury occurs, mistakenly believing that it is simpler and more “hassle free” to receive medical care without involving the hospital’s workers’ compensation (WC) insurance company.  We cannot stress strongly  enough that doing so is a grave error which will result in a relinquishment of lifetime coverage for the injury, as well as monetary benefits that can be payable, even without lost time from work.   

Workers who are injured on the job must remember the following:

--Report the injury as soon as possible.  Although you have 30 days give the employer notice of the injury, filing an accident report is the best way to ensure the employer will not dispute the injury.

--Filing an accident report does not mean you filed a claim. The best way to protect yourself is to file a C-3 claim form with the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB), a relatively easy process. The employer does not have to file the claim for you.

--Make sure any treatment, in the ER or with your doctor(s) is billed to the hospital’s workers compensation insurance carrier, not private insurance.   The doctors office will ordinarily contact the employer for their compensation insurance information.

--If there is a workers’ compensation hearing, the employer/carrier’s attorney who is present does not represent your interest at all.  The hearing process at the WCB is set up to help injured workers but many injured workers mistakenly believe that the attorney sent by the employer/carrier to the workers’ compensation hearing is representing them.   

-- Get an attorney as soon as possible to level the playing field with the compensation insurance carrier.  Workers’ compensation attorneys are not allowed to charge out-of-pocket fees for representation at all.  The attorney is only allowed to request a fee when they obtain additional monetary benefits for their client and the fee can only be deducted from the compensation benefits after approval by the Workers compensation Law Judge.

--Even if the injury does not result in lost time from work, monetary awards can be paid for many injuries to extremities if they result in a loss of function.    Workers such as butchers, cashiers and stock personnel are especially susceptible to injuries to extremities (shoulder/arm/hand or knee/leg/foot).   Don’t be cheated out of an award to which you are entitled under the law!


We invite any union member reading this article to contact our offices for free consultations regarding any injuries sustained either at work or elsewhere. This article discussed basic general issues, but every single situation is different.    We look forward to discussing your rights with you and possibly obtaining benefits for union members who may not be fully aware of the scope of their entitlements under our laws.

Richard W. Donohue, Esq. Partner,
Sherman, Federman, Sambur & McIntyre, LLP

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1345 0 Comments

All You Need to Know about Social Security Disability

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Friday, 18 May 2012
in Workers' Compensation

I am constantly questioned by union members about the advantages of filing for Social Security Disability (“SSD”) when they are injured on the job and unable to work. There are many misconceptions about the SSD program which have prevented people from asserting their rights and collecting money that is rightfully theirs. The fact of the matter is, SSD is a tremendous economic resource for the disabled and should be utilized. As you will see below, the maximum monthly family benefit is $4300 per month, or $51, 600 per year. This is money that many families shouldn’t do without when you are injured!

In this first article the UFOA has asked me to answer to the most common questions that people ask about SSD and dispel many of the myths that currently stop members from applying for benefits.

WHY BOTHER FILING, I WILL JUST BE DENIED?

It is true that many people who file SSD applications are denied on the initial application. It is also true that it is more likely that you will be denied on an application if you are less than 50 years old. However, this should never stop anyone from filing an application for SSD. Although the majority of cases are denied on the application, a very high percentage of those same cases are approved on appeal before a Social Security judge. SSD judges are well versed in the law and medicine involved in your case and with the right legal arguments, your case can be won!

DON’T I HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY BED-RIDDEN TO BE APPROVED FOR SSD?

No! Social Security Disability requires that a claimant be “unable to perform substantial gainful activity”; simply put, you have to be unable to work. So, the question isn’t “are you unable to do anything because of your disability?”; but instead is “are you unable to work due to your disability?” An inability to work can be proven even if you are able to perform many normal activities of daily living. Judges and lawyers look for very specific symptoms and limitations in attempting to prove your ability to work; you do not have to be “bed-ridden” to get SSD benefits.

CAN I GET SSD BENEFITS IF I WAS ONLY OUT OF WORK FOR 1 YEAR?

Yes! Social Security requires that a claimant be out of work, or be expected to be out of work, for at least 12 months to be eligible for SSD benefits. That means that if a claimant is out of work for at least twelve months but goes back to work, they can still be eligible for a lump sum of disability benefits for the time they were out of work. This is known as a “Closed Period” claim. For example, assume that you were out of work for 16 months due to a back injury, but did return to work in a full duty capacity thereafter. You would be entitled to collect SSD benefits for the time you were out of work regardless of your current work status. For an Officer of the NYC Fire Department this one year of benefits would exceed $20,000. Bottom line, a claimant can receive “Closed Period” SSD benefits even if they are back to work.

I RECEIVED LODI BENEFITS, I CAN’T RECEIVE SSD IN ADDITION, RIGHT?

Wrong! SSD is in addition to your Line of Duty Injury pay and no offset provision exists under the law. So, if your injury was incurred while working and you received LODI benefits for the entire time you were out of work, SSD is in addition to such full salary. The Social Security Act requires that a person not perform work activities in order to qualify for SSD. The Social Security Administration passed a Ruling specifically stating that New York municipal workers who receive full salary while they are out of work for injuries that occurred while working, are entitled to SSD and their full salaries!

DON’T I HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR BEFORE FILING FOR SSD?

No! If you have a serious injury that is expected to keep you out of work for at least one year you can, and should, file for SSD as early as possible. In New York it may take as long as 2 years to see a judge; filing an application early can save the claimant from severe economic hardship.

ISN’T SSD A WELFARE BENEFIT?

No! SSD is a federally secured retirement plan for people who accumulate enough work credits during their career but are unable to continue to work due to disability. Your tax dollars have helped fund this retirement package. Although Social Security does have a welfare component for people who haven’t worked, known as Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), SSD is not a welfare benefit.

IF I RECEIVE BENEFITS NOW, DOES IT AFFECT MY BENEFITS AT AGE 65?

No! If a claimant continues to receive SSD benefits up until their full retirement age they will continue to receive the increased disability rate after age 65. If a claimant receives a “Closed Period” of benefits, such benefits will have no impact on their “old age” retirement benefits upon retirement.

WHAT TYPE OF BENEFITS WILL I RECEIVE?

Depends. Your disability benefit depends on how much you have paid into the system over the years. Those figures are then placed into a mathematical equation written into the Social Security Act and a number is generated. What is certain is that if you have any minor children, they are entitled to ½ of your benefit amount in addition to your benefit, up to a “household maximum.” For example, if a claimant is entitled to $1500 per month from SSD and has one child under 18, they would be entitled to $2250 per month in SSD benefits.

For a rough estimate of a claimant’s disability benefit amount look at their annual statement from the Social Security Administration. If a claimant has minor children, be sure that they look under the “Family Household Maximum” amount to find out the maximum monthly benefit that Social Security will pay. This year, the maximum monthly benefit is $4300 per month.

Hopefully this dispels many of the myths of SSD! If you become injured and can’t work, do yourself (and family) a very big favor and file for SSD as soon as possible.

By:      Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq. | Sherman Federman Sambur & McIntyre, LLP.

Tags: Untagged
Hits: 1183 0 Comments

[Police Officers] The New 3/4's Slip & Falls = "Reasonable Anticipation"

Posted by Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Sherman Federman Sambur McIntyre
Super User has not set their biography yet
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 07 December 2011
in Workers' Compensation

By:  Sean Patrick Riordan, Esq.

Sherman, Federman, Sambur & McIntyre, LLP.

Over the last several years you have read articles, written by me and others, which outlined the slow decline of "slip and fall" occurrences as they relate to "3/4's accidents." Since 2008 virtually everyone that came into my office with these type accidents was told that "a 50% Performance of Duty Disability Retirement is more realistic." However, I am pleased to write that this article outlines the re-emergence of these type occurrences as possible "accidents" which can enable officers to get their 3/4's benefit. By no means are all slip and falls going to be awarded 3/4's, but the Appellate Division, in several recent decisions, has outlined the type of slip and falls that can be granted benefits. In short, there is new hope for those that are permanently disabled from police work as a result of a slip and fall occurrence.

The courts have paid special attention to what they believe the officer could have "reasonably anticipated" at the time of their fall. Another way to phrase this is what the Police Officer "knew or should have known" about the condition on which they slipped, prior to falling. Much of the Court's thought process surrounds officers' normal duties and the risks associated therewith.  For example, in a 2011 3rd Department decision where an officer tripped while chasing a subject through a "dimly-lit street", the officer was held to be performing his ordinary duties and should have reasonably anticipated that streets can contain various impediments to an officers safety, especially when dimly lit.  (Murray v. New York State Comptroller, May, 2011).

In Stone v. New York State Comptroller an officer was carrying a trundle to assist a heart attack victim with the aide of an EMT. The EMT suddenly pushed the trundle forward causing the officer to fall backward against an open screen door. The Court found that this occurrence was NOT an accident because the officer was performing her ordinary duties in carrying the trundle and that the risk of her peers uncoordinated movements is inherent in such duties. However, the Court goes on to give keys to what they will consider an "accident." The Court notes that the officer in Stone failed to produce any evidence that:

            (1) a hazardous condition existed

            (2) a defective condition existed

(3) that the cause of the injury was entirely unrelated to the ordinary risks of the job.

The Court thereby sets out three ways for an officer to prove he has sustained an "accident" when injured as the result of a slip and fall.  

In two subsequent decisions, the Court followed the train of though laid out in Stone. In Tierney v. New York State Comptroller, a Police Lieutenant "slipped on discarded food while stepping out of an office building where he routinely worked and fell down stairs. In his testimony the Lieutenant stated he did not previously observe food on the steps (which caused his fall) when he entered the building earlier that day and he did not see the food immediately prior to slipping on it either. In overturning the Comptroller's denial of benefits the Court noted that the State failed to show that the hazardous condition (i.e. the garbage on the steps) could have been "reasonably anticipated."

Lastly, in Murphy v. New York State Comptroller, a Police Officer "slipped on black ice" as he exited his vehicle onto an airport taxiway in the month of January. Murphy had testified that on the day of his fall the weather conditions were cold and clear with no precipitation. The Officer also stated in testimony that he had not seen any ice prior to exiting the vehicle and had never before experienced ice in the area in which he fell unless it had recently snowed. In overturning the Comptroller's denial the Court wrote:

 

"the Comptroller's decision relies on the premise that encountering slip or icy surfaces was inherent in petitioner's performance of his job during winter. While this Court has held that a fall occasioned by a slippery surface is not an accident when that condition could have been reasonably anticipated, a denial upon such ground must be supported by the record and not rest merely upon speculation...we have never countenanced a doctrine...that would hold that any slip and fall during the course of work performed outside during winter renders that event foreseeable."

While the above statements of the Court seem obvious to us, their power and importance cannot be understated. What does it all mean to officers? First, as we have said for some time, it is important to be detailed in your initial Injured Employee Report. If you believe that you are injured due to an "unforeseeable" event, describe in such report why the condition that caused your injury was unknowable and the facts and circumstances that made it unknowable. The Court is making clear in their recent decisions that not everything an Officer encounters during their work is "foreseeable", so be clear from the outset why it wasn't in each particular occurrence. We don't want to have to wait for you to testify in order for the State to understand why this occurrence is unexpected.

Second, where there is a hazardous or defective condition that causes your injury, take pictures immediately after the event. The cliché that "pictures speak a thousand words" cannot be truer than in disability proceedings. It is important that we show the State the condition that caused the injury. The pictures will enhance the credibility of the claim. Many of these cases will now come down to our documentation, so we should and must produce all evidence possible.

As always, if you are injured in the course of your duties and need assistance filing the necessary paperwork, please do not hesitate to call or email and discuss the matter with our firm.

Hits: 1490 0 Comments
 

Additional Information Relative to Filing a Worker's Compensation Claim - English

Sherman, Federman, Sambur, & McInture, LLP is a Long Island, NY based workers’ compensation firm. We provide services to the greater New York area including but not limited to Brentwood, Garden City, Hempstead, Islip, Manhattan, Riverhead, essentially all of Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk county), Sysosset, Bay Shore, Hampton Bays, East Hampton, West Hampton, the North Fork, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massacheusetts the South Fork, Down Island, the North Shore, the South Shore, Mattituck, Jamesport, Cutchogue, Commack, Wyndanch, Longbeach, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. We cover all urban, suburban and rural areas alike (i.e., the entire Tristate area).

Services include workers accident, workers compensation, social security disability, and veterans disability. We have worked with and represent heart attack patients, herniated discs, those injured on the job, pertaining to occupational disease illness for bread winners, the elderly/old, exclusive remedy requires, death benefits, fraud, office related injury, posttraumatic stress syndrome, abogado, lesions, compensation, laborales, en mass, section 32, HEP C, hepatitis, permanent disability, pre-existing conditions, 3rd party injuries, neck injury, sue worthy, employer induced, 32 settlements, WCB permanent-partial, carpal tunnel, car crash, arthritis, CRPS, temporary partial, TPD, complex regional pain syndrome, etc.

We are the best law attorneys/work injury lawyers/SSI and SSD attorneys, located in New York City. We can provide a free consultation for your case. Simply fill out our NY state intake form. There is also a printable version available via that same new client intake form link.

Where can I file a workers comp, SSD (social security disability), veterans claim in New York? Please contact us to set up an appointment!

Please view our testimonials above via the top-most navigation menu. You may also view our frequently asked questions (FAQ) pertaining to your SSI/SSD/Worker's Comp claim.

Moreover, please contact us with any questions related to: withdrawal, workers comp forms relative to NY/NJ/CT, NY workers compensation laws, Suffolk County and Nassau County WC Laws, questions regarding doctors in Long Island who may be able to assist with your comp case, "When should I get an attorney for NYS WC case?", filing for benefits, repetitive motion, all WC related forms and, potential fees and awards for your case, questions related to the WC board, questions relative to changing your reward, average weekly wage, reopening a workman’s comp case, SSI Attorneys and assistance, questions regarding making/filing another application whilst you have a pending appeal, reopening post-decision cases, voluntary withdrawal from the workforce, "Who pays for workers comp?", judge(s), spine stimulators, how to begin your WC case with SFSM via www.nycomplaw.com, wages and wage estimates, claiming your rewards for a filed case and the respective guidelines to winning.

Regardless of the outcome, Sherman, Federman, Sambur, & McIntyre, LLP is here to help. And our success is driven by our combined passion to help you!

El pariente adicional de Información para Archivar una Pretensión de Indemnización Laboral - Espanol

Sherman, Federman, Sambur, y McInture, LLP es una Larga Isla, Nueva York basó a la firma de compensación por accidentes de trabajo. Le proveemos los servicios al mayor área de Nueva York incluyendo pero no limitado a Brentwood, la Ciudad Jardín, Hempstead, Islip, Manhattan, Fuente de Un Río, esencialmente todo Sysosset Bastante Isleño,, Costa Baya, Hampton Bays, Hampton del este, West Hampton, el North Fork, Nueva Jersey, Connecticut, Pensilvania, Massacheusetts lo Al Sur Tenedor, la Isla Caída, el North Shore, lo Al Sur Costa, Mattituck, Jamesport, Cutchogue, Commack, Wyndanch, Longbeach, las Reinas, el Bronx, Brooklyn, etcétera (Nassau y condado Suffolk). Cubrimos todas áreas urbanas, suburbanas y rurales por igual (i.e., el área entero Tristate).

Los servicios incluyen accidente de trabajadores, compensación de trabajadores, incapacidad de seguro social, e incapacidad de veteranos. Hemos trabajado con y representamos a los pacientes de ataque al corazón, los discos herniados, esos heridos en el trabajo, relacionado con la enfermedad de enfermedad profesional para ganadores de pan, las personas de edad/viejas, el recurso exclusivo requiere, beneficios por muerte, fraude, la oficina relató lesión, síndrome postraumático de estrés, abogado, lesiones, compensación, laborales, masa en, sección 32, HEP C, la hepatitis, la incapacidad perpetua, condiciones preexistentes, lesiones 3 de fiesta, la lesión del cuello, entable demanda digno, el empleador inducido, 32 acuerdos, WCB parcial en la permanente, el túnel del carpo, el accidente automovilístico, la artritis, CRPS, el empleado eventual parcial, TPD, complique síndrome regional de dolor, etcétera.

Somos los abogados de ley de mejor abogado /trabajo de la lesión del abogado /Ingreso Suplementario de Seguridad y SSD, localizado en la ciudad de Nueva York. Podemos proveer una consulta libre para su caso. Simplemente llene nuestra forma de la toma del estado de Nueva York. Hay también una versión imprimible disponible por ese mismo nuevo enlace de la forma de la toma del cliente.

¿Dónde puedo reportar a unos trabajadores comp, SSD (la incapacidad de seguro social), pretensión de veteranos en Nueva York? Aquí mismo en Sherman, Federman.

Por favor mire nuestros testimonios arriba por el menú que se sobrepasa más de navegación. Usted también puede mirar nuestras preguntas preguntadas (el archivo de preguntas frecuentes) frecuentemente relacionado con su la pretensión Comp DE SSI/SSD/Worker.

Además, por favor contáctenos con cualquier preguntas con las que se relacionó: El retiro, ¿ las formas del comp de trabajadores referente a NY?, Solicitando beneficios, moción repetitiva, todo WC formas relacionadas y, premios y retribuciones potenciales para su caso, las preguntas se relacionaron con el pizarrón WC, preguntas referente a cambiar su recompensa, salario medio semanal, reabriendo un trabajador Abogados comp de caso, de Ingreso Suplementario de Seguridad y la asistencia, tiene objeciones acerca de referente a la confección /limadura otra aplicación aun mientras usted tiene una súplica pendiente, reabriendo casos de postdecisión, retiro voluntario de la población en edad laboral, ¿ "quien paga para trabajadores comp"?, El juez (s), los estimuladores de la columna vertebral, cómo empezar su caso WC con SFSM por medio de www.nycomplaw.com, sueldo y salario estima, pidiendo sus recompensas como demanda por un caso archivado y el respectivo conjunto de directrices a ganar.

Sin tener en cuenta el resultado, Sherman, Federman, Sambur, y McIntyre, LLP es aquí para ayudar. ¡Y nuestro éxito es conducido por nuestra pasión combinada para ayudarle!