This week, the 3rd Department decided on 3 cases on June 27, 2024. Learn more about each of these cases below.

DeWolf v. Wayne County. 

In this occupational hearing loss claim, the Law Judge initially found for the claimant. However, the Board Panel reversed, and the 3rd Dept. affirmed the Board Panel.

The claimant was an EMT for 15 years and alleged being present during loud siren and radio noises.  There were no details on the duration or decibel levels of the siren or radio noises. The claimant also testified that he hunted recreationally for 26 years. The Court held that the claimant did not demonstrate causation by a probability as to the underlying cause supported by a rational basis.  Here, the employer did not even have a medical opinion. The lack of underlying proof, especially concessions by the claimant’s medical experts that they could only “guess” or that they “believe[d]” without more medical probability, without consideration of the alternative cause, was not enough proof to reverse the Board.

Carroll v. Nassau County Police Department.

Here, in another favorable decision for the employer, the 3rd Dept. affirmed the Board’s ultimate determination that a claimant, police officer, did not involuntary retire because of his medical condition. The issue in this case was whether a police officer who had a line of duty spinal injury with a laminectomy and discectomy ten years prior, but continued to work light duty was entitled to disability upon recent complaints that he could no longer manage his light duty restrictions.

The Law Judge initially found in favor of the claimant. Then the Board Panel reversed, finding that the claimant voluntarily retired. The 3rd Dept. upheld the Board Panel’s decision. The Board, in breaking from the Law Judge, drew their conclusion based on the claimant’s orthopedist’s concession that he was unaware that claimant was permitted to take breaks, to move, stand and stretch as much as need needed, which would alleviate his symptoms caused by prolonged periods of sitting.  It is notable that claimant’s expert did not find 100% disability and there was no medical recommendation that claimant retire.

Bonilla v. XL Specialty Insurance. 

For this case, two claimants, both travelling in the same van, were injured in a motor vehicle accident on the way to a job site. The job site was covered by a wrap up policy. The van was provided by the employer who picked up the workers at the train to bring them to the job site.  Since the employer took responsibility for transporting these workers, their ride is within the exclusive control of the employer.

The Carrier attempted to argue that it’s wrap up policy excluded coverage for this accident because it did not happen at the job site, but the Court held that there was no specific language excluding travel to and from the site, because the travel was in furtherance of the work to be done at the site. It should be noted that the Board also issued a sizeable $10,000 penalty for the carrier’s failure to appear at multiple hearings.

[View source.]