Abdallah v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

7 Citing cases

  1. Andino v. Structural Pres. Sys.

    222 A.D.3d 1132 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    Despite the prior medical treatment, the October 22, 2020 diagnosis and his plans to have surgery, claimant still did not notify the employer of the accident until March 2021, three months after his surgery in December 2020. In light of claimant's complaints of ongoing pain since the accident and his prior medical treatment, including surgery, the Board rationally concluded that claimant had not provided a sufficient reason for failing to inform the employer of his work-related injuries until March 2021 (seeMatter of Abdallah v. New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 1297, 1298, 140 N.Y.S.3d 424 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Rydstrom v. Precision Carpentry of Westchester, Inc., 150 A.D.3d 1602, 1602–1603, 55 N.Y.S.3d 521 [3d Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 902, 2017 WL 4654096 [2017] ). Given that claimant first received medical treatment more than a year and a half prior to filing his claim and had surgery on his shoulder three months before such time, without the employer being made aware that his injuries were work-related and having an opportunity to investigate the accident, the Board did not abuse its discretion by failing to excuse claimant's untimely notice (see Matter of Rydstrom v. Precision Carpentry of Westchester, Inc., 150 A.D.3d at 1603, 55 N.Y.S.3d 521 ; Matter of Bennett v. Putnam N. Westchester BOCES, 123 A.D.3d 1397, 1399, 1 N.Y.S.3d 406 [3d Dept. 2014] ).

  2. White v. SEG Maint.

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    "Workers' Compensation Law § 18 requires that a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits must provide written notice of an injury within 30 days after the accident causing such injury. The failure to give timely written notice generally precludes a claim unless the Board excuses the failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident or the employer did not suffer any prejudice" (Matter of Nukicic v McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d 1260, 1260-1261 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Napolitano v City of Batavia, 194 A.D.3d 1336, 1336 [2021]; see Matter of Abdallah v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 1297, 1297 [2021]). "Notably, it is the claimant who bears the burden of demonstrating that the employer was not prejudiced by any delay, and even if one of the foregoing grounds is proven, the Board is not required to excuse a claimant's failure to provide timely notice as, in the end, the matter rests within the Board's discretion"

  3. McElroy v. Siena College

    201 A.D.3d 1090 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    We affirm. "A claimant seeking workers’ compensation benefits must give the employer written notice of the claim within 30 days of sustaining a compensable injury" ( Matter of Abdallah v. New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 1297, 1297, 140 N.Y.S.3d 424 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Workers’ Compensation Law § 18 ; Matter ofHorvath v. Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 110 N.Y.S.3d 164 [2019] ; Matter of Sheikh v. White & Blue Group Corp., 168 A.D.3d 1196, 1197, 90 N.Y.S.3d 704 [2019] ). "The failure to do so ‘generally precludes a claim unless the Board excuses the failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident or the employer did not suffer any prejudice’ " ( Matter ofLeduc v. Northeastern Clinton CSD, 197 A.D.3d 1373, 1374–1375, 153 N.Y.S.3d 640 [2021], quoting Matter ofNukicic v. McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d 1260, 1260–1261, 106 N.Y.S.3d 225 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of Abdallah v. New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d at 1297, 140 N.Y.S.3d 424 ).

  4. Leduc v. Ne. Clinton CSD

    No. 2021-04938 (N.Y. App. Div. Sep. 2, 2021)

    Initially, pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 18, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits is required to provide written notice of an injury within 30 days after the accident causing such injury (see Matter of Horvath v Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d 1279, 1280 [2019]; Matter of Sheikh v White & Blue Group Corp., 168 A.D.3d 1196, 1197 [2019]). The failure to do so "generally precludes a claim unless the Board excuses the failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident or the employer did not suffer any prejudice" (Matter of Nukicic v McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d 1260, 1260-1261 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Abdallah v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 1297, 1297 [2021]). It is the claimant who bears the burden of demonstrating that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in providing timely notice (see Matter of Horvath v Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d at 1280; Matter of Nukicic v McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d at 1261).

  5. Leduc v. Ne. Clinton CSD

    197 A.D.3d 1373 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Initially, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 18, a claimant seeking workers’ compensation benefits is required to provide written notice of an injury within 30 days after the accident causing such injury (see Matter ofHorvath v. Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 110 N.Y.S.3d 164 [2019] ; Matter of Sheikh v. White & Blue Group Corp., 168 A.D.3d 1196, 1197, 90 N.Y.S.3d 704 [2019] ). The failure to do so "generally precludes a claim unless the Board excuses the failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident or the employer did not suffer any prejudice" ( Matter ofNukicic v. McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d 1260, 1260–1261, 106 N.Y.S.3d 225 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; seeMatter of Abdallah v. New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 1297, 1297, 140 N.Y.S.3d 424 [2021] ). It is the claimant who bears the burden of demonstrating that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in providing timely notice (see Matter ofHorvath v. Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d at 1280, 110 N.Y.S.3d 164 ; Matter ofNukicic v. McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d at 1261, 106 N.Y.S.3d 225 ).

  6. McElroy v. Siena College

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 93 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    We affirm. "A claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits must give the employer written notice of the claim within 30 days of sustaining a compensable injury" (Matter of Abdallah v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 1297, 1297 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Workers' Compensation Law § 18; Matter of Horvath v Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d 1279, 1280 [2019]; Matter of Sheikh v White & Blue Group Corp., 168 A.D.3d 1196, 1197 [2019]). "The failure to do so 'generally precludes a claim unless the Board excuses the failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident or the employer did not suffer any prejudice'" (Matter of Leduc v Northeastern Clinton CSD, 197 A.D.3d 1373, 1374-1375 [2021], quoting Matter of Nukicic v McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d 1260, 1260-1261 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Abdallah v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d at 1297).

  7. Leduc v. Ne. Clinton CSD

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 4938 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Initially, pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 18, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits is required to provide written notice of an injury within 30 days after the accident causing such injury (see Matter of Horvath v Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d 1279, 1280 [2019]; Matter of Sheikh v White & Blue Group Corp., 168 A.D.3d 1196, 1197 [2019]). The failure to do so "generally precludes a claim unless the Board excuses the failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident or the employer did not suffer any prejudice" (Matter of Nukicic v McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d 1260, 1260-1261 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Abdallah v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.3d 1297, 1297 [2021]). It is the claimant who bears the burden of demonstrating that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in providing timely notice (see Matter of Horvath v Mega Forklift, 176 A.D.3d at 1280; Matter of Nukicic v McLane Northeast, 174 A.D.3d at 1261).