From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Roach v. Hastings Plastics Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 23, 1981
85 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

December 23, 1981


Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 26, 1980, which reversed a referee's decision and denied further compensation benefits to claimant. On February 26, 1971, claimant sustained a compensable injury and thereafter commenced a medical malpractice action against certain physicians based upon the surgery and medical care rendered from February 27, 1971. Concededly, this malpractice action was discontinued on October 7, 1976, without the consent of the compensation insurance carrier. The board found that claimant's discontinuance of the malpractice action without the consent of the carrier barred further compensation recovery and this appeal ensued. Section 29 of the Workers' Compensation Law prohibits a claimant from compromising a third-party action without the consent of the compensation carrier liable for payment of compensation benefits or a compromise order from a Justice of the court in which the third-party action was pending (Workers' Compensation Law, § 29, subd 5). Contrary to claimant's initial assertion, it is well established that a medical malpractice action, such as the one in question herein, is a third-party action within the meaning of section 29 of the Workers' Compensation Law ( Matter of Parchefsky v Kroll Bros., 267 N.Y. 410; Matter of Wasserman v Charcoal Chef, 66 A.D.2d 981). It has also been held that a discontinuance of a third-party action is a compromise of the action requiring the consent of the carrier under section 29 of the Workers' Compensation Law ( Matter of Duffy v Fuller Co., 21 A.D.2d 725; Matter of Gruhn v Miller Brown, Inc., 275 App. Div. 975). Such a discontinuance, without consent, relieves the carrier of liability ( Matter of Duffy v Fuller Co., supra). Claimant has failed to demonstrate sufficient reason for deviating from these previous court decisions which govern the present case and, therefore, the decision of the board should be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J.P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Herlihy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Roach v. Hastings Plastics Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 23, 1981
85 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Matter of Roach v. Hastings Plastics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of KEVIN ROACH, Appellant, v. HASTINGS PLASTICS…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1981

Citations

85 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Matter of Roach v. Hastings Plastics Corp.

Decided March 30, 1982 Appeal from (3d dept: 85 A.D.2d 833) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO…