Not a Lexis+ 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.
Where a New York claimant failed to complete the information “box” for question 13 of the RB-89 form (Application for Review), within which claimant would otherwise have provided details as to “[h]earing dates, [t]ranscripts, [d]ocuments, [e]xhibits, and other evidence that she would rely upon in her administrative appeal, the Application was defective and the Workers' Compensation Board was within its discretion to deny claimant's application on that basis, held a state appellate court. The court noted that claimant had been represented by counsel. It stressed that the RB-89 was no cover sheet; it was an important part of the application for review.
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 Jones v Human Resources Admin., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343 (July 3, 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