From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Kaplan v. Model Iron Aluminum Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 16, 1951
279 App. Div. 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

November 16, 1951.


The only question presented by this appeal is whether appellant's claim for reimbursement was filed timely in compliance with paragraph (f) of subdivision 8 of section 15 of the statute (Workmen's Compensation Law). While it is true that the decision of February 18, 1947, was final as regards the determination of the mere fact of claimant's permanent partial disability, its finality ended there. At that time there was implicit in such determination the premise that the disability was wholly occasioned by claimant's injury in the employ of the appellant-employer. Much subsequently followed after the reinquiries made as to the history, nature, and extent of the disability. These culminated in a final determination which was filed April 7, 1948, wherein it was found that the disability was 75% in extent, the totality of which was apportioned in causation as 65% due to an old injury while in another's employ, and the remainder to the second injury in the employ of the appellant-employer. The claim for reimbursement was filed February 26, 1947, and so prior to this last, final and complete determination in regard to the relevant phases of claimant's compensable injuries and their resultant permanent partially disabling effect. This latter decision supplemented the former one and extended it, and it was the determination which effectively terminated all matter concerning the disability in question. In consonance with the spirit and purpose of the legislative measure designed to encourage the employment of physically handicapped persons we think it should be held that this last determination was the final one as measuring the timeliness of the mere filing of appellant's claim for reimbursement. The decision appealed from is reversed on the law insofar as it holds that appellant's claim for reimbursement was not timely filed, without costs. Foster, P.J., Brewster and Bergan, JJ., concur; Heffernan and Coon, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.


Summaries of

Matter of Kaplan v. Model Iron Aluminum Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 16, 1951
279 App. Div. 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Matter of Kaplan v. Model Iron Aluminum Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of MAX KAPLAN, Respondent, against MODEL IRON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 16, 1951

Citations

279 App. Div. 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

Matter of Zaick v. General Electric Company

In this case, for example, the original determination was final, there is no suggestion of any present…

Matter of Bruton v. Parade Motors, Inc.

This award was in all respects affirmed by the board except for a reversal of the Referee's finding that the…