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.
A New York appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination that a truck driver had sustained a back injury in the course and scope of his employment in spite of the fact that the driver’s version of what happened differed from data generated by an on-board computer monitor system. The driver testified that he felt a “pop” in his neck when he was forced to decelerate to avoid another driver’s lane change. The driver was carrying a liquid chemical in a hollow-bore trailer at the time and he testified that the deceleration caused the liquid in the trailer to surge forward, and then back again. A log generated by the truck’s on-board computer system noted no appreciable deceleration, however. The court held that the Board was entitled to credit the testimony of an expert who opined that it was possible for the truck to decelerate at less than 10 mph per second and not register anything on the data recorder. Under these circumstances, the Board’s findings were supported by competent evidence.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Matter of Dupont v. Quality Distrib., Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1089 (3rd Dept. Feb. 15, 2018)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 130.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law