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.
Acknowledging that the New York Workers’ Compensation Board had broad discretion in setting rules regarding the content and formatting of an application for Board review (form RB-89), a state appellate court nevertheless held the rules, as written, failed to provide a “safety valve” allowing an applicant to seek permission to file a lengthier brief without jeopardizing the appeal. Accordingly, the rules were invalid. Here the employer sought Board review and submitted a 10-page brief, noting it had exceeded the 8-page limitation due to the complexity of the case. The Board found that to be an insufficient reason and summarily denied the request for Board review. The appellate court found the rule left an applicant in an untenable position and it, therefore, could not stand.
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 Daniels v. City of Rochester, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8944 (3d Dept., Dec. 12, Dec. 10, 2019)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 124.08.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.