From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Kathleen Droge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 24, 2010
78 A.D.3d 1473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

November 24, 2010.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed February 8, 2010, which ruled that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market.

Before: Kavanagh, Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ.


In 1998, claimant was classified as permanently partially disabled due to a compensable neck injury and left carpal tunnel syndrome. In 2003, further hearings were held with regard to claimant's neck. She has not worked since that time and, in 2009, the employer's workers' compensation carrier submitted a request for further action to determine whether claimant was seeking employment within her medical restrictions. Following a hearing on the issue, a workers' compensation law judge denied the carrier's application to suspend benefits, concluding that the carrier failed to prove that claimant's unemployment was voluntary or otherwise unrelated to her disability. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Here, claimant had an obligation to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market by evidence of a search for employment within medical restrictions ( see Matter of Peck v James Sq. Nursing Home, 34 AD3d 1033, 1034; cf. Matter of Pittman v ABM Indus., Inc., 24 AD3d 1056, 1058). Claimant admitted that she had not engaged in a search for employment of any kind — or even discussed returning to work with any of her doctors — since 2003. Accordingly, the Board's decision that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market is supported by substantial evidence and we decline to disturb it ( see Matter of White v Herman, 56 AD3d 872, 873-874).

Finally, under these circumstances, we cannot agree with claimant's assertion that the parties' stipulation — in 1998 — to her permanent partial disability classification precludes the Board's subsequent inquiry into her entitlement to ongoing benefits ( see generally id.).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Kathleen Droge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 24, 2010
78 A.D.3d 1473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Kathleen Droge

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of KATHLEEN DROGE, Appellant, v. COSTCO PRICE…

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

Date published: Nov 24, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 1473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
911 N.Y.S.2d 505

Citing Cases

Droge v. Costco Price Club

Decided February 24, 2011. Appeal from the 3d Dept: 78 AD3d 1473.…