Mayewski v. Superior Plus Energy Servs.

1 Citing case

  1. Lyman v. N.Y. State Canal Corp.

    208 A.D.3d 1571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Karpman further opined that there are no additional therapy or orthopedic treatments that would improve claimant's symptoms because she has exhausted all kinds of treatment available to her and that claimant has experienced minimal improvement of her condition. In our view, the foregoing medical evidence that claimant suffers from a permanent and chronic painful condition of an extremity (foot) accompanied by chronic swelling constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that claimant's permanent impairment is amenable to nonschedule classification as a marked permanent partial disability (seeMatter of Mayewski v. Superior Plus Energy Servs., 192 A.D.3d 1312, 1314–1315, 143 N.Y.S.3d 717 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Tobin v. Finger Lakes DDSO, 162 A.D.3d at 1287, 78 N.Y.S.3d 503 ; Matter of LaClaire v. Birds Eye Foods, Inc., 128 A.D.3d at 1299, 10 N.Y.S.3d 355 ; New York Workers’ Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment § 1.6[2] at 8–9 [1st ed 2017]). To the extent that any of the remaining contentions raised by the employer have not been specifically addressed, they have been rendered academic in light of our determination or have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.