From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Claim of Iamiceli v. American Telephone & Telegraph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 28, 1993
189 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

January 28, 1993

Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board.


Claimant suffered an injury to her right arm on October 9, 1987. At a November 10, 1989 hearing, at which claimant and the self-insured employer were represented by counsel, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) incorporated previous awards into an over-all award for schedule loss of use of 12 1/2% of the right arm equal to 39 weeks. On the question of reimbursement to the employer, at issue on this appeal, the WCLJ stated, "Credit employer $6,144.30, balance to claimant. Make that credit employer entire schedule. No protracted healing period and case is closed." Claimant's counsel noted his objection to reimbursement to the employer. The WCLJ's decision was incorporated into a November 20, 1989 award. Following claimant's appeal, the case was reopened and restored to the trial calendar for further consideration of the issue of the employer's entitlement to reimbursement and, ultimately, the Workers' Compensation Board found that the employer failed to make a written or oral request for reimbursement and was, accordingly, not entitled to reimbursement. The employer appeals.

We affirm. It is fundamental that reimbursement pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) is conditioned upon the employer making a request therefor prior to the time the award of compensation is made (see, Matter of Adolf v. City of Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 50 N.Y.2d 871, 872; Matter of Drew v. Board of Educ., 35 A.D.2d 871, affd 29 N.Y.2d 510). In this case, the record evidences no oral or written request for reimbursement prior to the November 20, 1989 schedule award. In our view, the WCLJ's November 10, 1989 reference to reimbursement in a specific dollar amount does not compel a finding that a request for reimbursement had been made. Notice of the fact that wages were being paid during the period of disability and of the employer's consequent entitlement to reimbursement is not the equivalent of receipt of a request or claim therefor (see, Matter of Drew v Board of Educ., supra). Finally, to the extent that a request for reimbursement may have been made in the employer's November 28, 1989 notice that payment of compensation has been stopped or modified or its July 26, 1990 memorandum of law, it was untimely.

Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Claim of Iamiceli v. American Telephone & Telegraph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 28, 1993
189 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Claim of Iamiceli v. American Telephone & Telegraph

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of DOROTHY IAMICELI, Respondent, v. AMERICAN…

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

Date published: Jan 28, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 1040 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
592 N.Y.S.2d 885

Citing Cases

Storms v. BOCES Erie No. 1

To that end, "a bare statement that full wages are being paid during [the period of] disability" does not…

Newbill v. Town of Hempstead

ents to an employee in like manner as wages during any period of disability, [the employer] shall be entitled…