From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Eddings v. Big Jim Serv. Ctr., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 27, 1978
62 A.D.2d 1119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Summary

In Eddings v. Big Jim Service Center, Inc., 404 N.Y.S.2d 441, 62 A.D.2d 1119 (1978), the claimant appealed a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board denying her application to reopen her claim.

Summary of this case from Walker v. J J Pest Control

Opinion

April 27, 1978


Appeal from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board, filed April 28, 1976, which denied her application to reopen her claim. While working as a service station attendent on August 4, 1973, the deceased employee herein, who was the son of the claimant, was shot to death in an apparent robbery on his employer's premises. Subsequently, accident, notice and causal relation were established, but, in a decision filed January 22, 1976, the board denied the claimant an award of death benefits upon finding that she was not a legal dependent of the deceased at the time of his death. Shortly thereafter, the claimant made application to reopen her case on the basis of newly discovered evidence, and the board also denied this application in the decision which is challenged on this appeal. We hold that the board's decision should be affirmed. Absent its being arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, a determination by the board not to reopen a case will not be disturbed (Matter of Bello v Ladman, 43 A.D.2d 869, affd 36 N.Y.2d 741; Matter of Dudley v Brown, Harris Stevens, 35 A.D.2d 1040). Here, claimant seeks to have her case reopened on the basis of newly discovered evidence, and yet it is undisputed that the alleged new evidence was discovered by her attorney almost two months before the board's decision denying her death benefits. Nonetheless, no attempt was made to apprise the board of this evidence prior to the issuance of its decision on January 22, 1976, and the failure of the claimant or her attorney to so act in this regard justified the board's later refusal to reopen the case. Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J.P., Staley, Jr., Main and Larkin, JJ., concur; Mikoll, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum.


I respectfully dissent. The new evidence was discovered in this case by claimant's attorney after the case had been heard by the board. In view of the fact that the request to reopen was promptly made and involved a witness who is impartial and whose identity and existence were unknown at the time of the hearing, a denial to reopen is arbitrary and capricious. The matter should be remitted for further hearings and findings.


Summaries of

Matter of Eddings v. Big Jim Serv. Ctr., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 27, 1978
62 A.D.2d 1119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

In Eddings v. Big Jim Service Center, Inc., 404 N.Y.S.2d 441, 62 A.D.2d 1119 (1978), the claimant appealed a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board denying her application to reopen her claim.

Summary of this case from Walker v. J J Pest Control
Case details for

Matter of Eddings v. Big Jim Serv. Ctr., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ADRILLA EDDINGS, Appellant, v. BIG JIM…

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1978

Citations

62 A.D.2d 1119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Walker v. J J Pest Control

However, Dr. Peters, in a deposition taken April 30, 1981, testified that he did tell him. He further…

Matter of Wasserman v. Chef

Initially, we find that the appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Since the board's decision was filed on…