Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Signaling that if the New York Workers’ Compensation Board fails to use N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 14(1) to compute an injured worker’s average weekly wage, it must either use § 14(2), which computes the AWW for a six-day worker by multiplying his or her daily wage by 300, or provide an explanation as to why that subsection could not be used; it may not merely move on to § 14(3), which utilizes a 200-multiplier, held a state appellate court. Here the claimant had worked six days per week for a 13-week period before sustaining work-related injuries. There was no question that § 14(1) didn’t apply, but the Board chose subsection (3) without further explanation. The case was remanded for a proper determination.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Matter of Molina v. Icon Parking LLC, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7497 (3d Dept. Oct. 17, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 93.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see