From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Andrello v. Hotel Oneida Bruno's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 13, 1990
165 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

September 13, 1990

Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board.


The Workers' Compensation Board properly rejected as untimely the claim that the chiropractic treatment received by claimant was excessive. The application for Board review was not made within 30 days of the decision of the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) authorizing such care (see, Matter of Eberle v. New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene, 60 A.D.2d 722). The application for review was instead from a decision of the WCLJ wherein the employer and carrier were directed to pay in accordance with the WCLJ's previous decision. This was not a new decision from which the question of chiropractic care could be appealed to the Board (cf., Matter of Gray v. Williams Press, 4 A.D.2d 920). The remaining claims being raised were not passed upon by the Board and are therefore not properly reviewable by this court (see, Matter of Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co., 111 A.D.2d 1064). Finally, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for reconsideration of its previous decision (see, Matter of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co., 72 A.D.2d 641, lv denied 48 N.Y.2d 610).

Decisions affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Andrello v. Hotel Oneida Bruno's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 13, 1990
165 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Andrello v. Hotel Oneida Bruno's

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ANTHONY ANDRELLO, Respondent, v. HOTEL…

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

Date published: Sep 13, 1990

Citations

165 A.D.2d 916 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
560 N.Y.S.2d 526

Citing Cases

McCurty v. Syracuse University

Consequently, the employer had 30 days after notice of the filing of that decision to request review of that…

Friss v. Hudson Police Dept

We note initially that, in examining the case law on the issue it is not always clear whether WCLJ or Board…