death benefits claim in New York

2022The Court reasoned that "a death benefits claim accrues at the time of death and 'is a separate and distinct legal proceeding' from the worker's original disability claim" ( id. at 392, quoting Matter of Zechmann v Canisteo Volunteer Fire Dept. , 85 NY2d 747, 751 [1995]).

2021Our decision herein, however, does not concern the death benefits claim, which is not before us and "is a separate and distinct claim from a claim for disability benefits for the underlying injury" ( Matter of Mace v Owl Wire & Cable Co. , 284 AD2d 672, 675 [2001]; see Matter of Zechmann v Canisteo Volunteer Fire Dept. , 85 NY2d 747, 751 [1995]; Matter of Brannigan v Town of Oyster Bay , 141 AD2d 942, 943 [1988]; see generally Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 [4]; 16, 33).

2014Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s determination that the Special Disability Fund was not liable for the death benefits claim (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [8] [ee]; Matter of Grill v Fashion Inst. of Tech., 74 AD3d 1685, 1686-1687 [2010]; Matter of Lalla v Astoria A.C., 156 AD2d 808, 809 [1989]).

2014Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s determination that the Special Disability Fund was not liable for the death benefits claim (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [8] [ee]; Matter of Grill v Fashion Inst. of Tech., 74 AD3d 1685, 1686-1687 [2010]; Matter of Lalla v Astoria A.C., 156 AD2d 808, 809 [1989]).

2014Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s determination that the Special Disability Fund was not liable for the death benefits claim (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [8] [ee]; Matter of Grill v Fashion Inst. of Tech., 74 AD3d 1685, 1686-1687 [2010]; Matter of Lalla v Astoria A.C., 156 AD2d 808, 809 [1989]).

2014Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s determination that the Special Disability Fund was not liable for the death benefits claim (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [8] [ee]; Matter of Grill v Fashion Inst. of Tech., 74 AD3d 1685, 1686-1687 [2010]; Matter of Lalla v Astoria A.C., 156 AD2d 808, 809 [1989]).

2021Our decision herein, however, does not concern the death benefits claim, which is not before us and "is a separate and distinct claim from a claim for disability benefits for the underlying injury" ( Matter of Mace v Owl Wire & Cable Co. , 284 AD2d 672, 675 [2001]; see Matter of Zechmann v Canisteo Volunteer Fire Dept. , 85 NY2d 747, 751 [1995]; Matter of Brannigan v Town of Oyster Bay , 141 AD2d 942, 943 [1988]; see generally Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 [4]; 16, 33).

2009While “a claim for death benefits ... is a separate and distinct legal proceeding brought by the beneficiary’s dependents and is not equated with the beneficiary’s original disability claim” (id. at 751; see Matter of Arena v Crown Asphalt Co., 292 AD2d 743, 746 [2002]; Matter of Mace v Owl Wire & Cable Co., 284 AD2d at 675 ), the character of the administrative proceedings does not define the contractual relationship between the insured and insurer under a workers’ compensation insurance policy.

2026In any event, any contention by the employer that its due process rights were violated is specious given that it called this witness and that the employer was also the employer of record in the other death benefits claim ( see Matter of Pierre v ABF Frgt. , 211 AD3d at 1286; cf. Matter of Kaplan v New York City Tr.

2026In any event, any contention by the employer that its due process rights were violated is specious given that it called this witness and that the employer was also the employer of record in the other death benefits claim ( see Matter of Pierre v ABF Frgt. , 211 AD3d at 1286 ; cf. Matter of Kaplan v New York City Tr.

2021Our decision herein, however, does not concern the death benefits claim, which is not before us and "is a separate and distinct claim from a claim for disability benefits for the underlying injury" ( Matter of Mace v Owl Wire & Cable Co. , 284 AD2d 672, 675 [2001]; see Matter of Zechmann v Canisteo Volunteer Fire Dept. , 85 NY2d 747, 751 [1995]; Matter of Brannigan v Town of Oyster Bay , 141 AD2d 942, 943 [1988]; see generally Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 [4]; 16, 33).

2009While “a claim for death benefits ... is a separate and distinct legal proceeding brought by the beneficiary’s dependents and is not equated with the beneficiary’s original disability claim” (id. at 751; see Matter of Arena v Crown Asphalt Co., 292 AD2d 743, 746 [2002]; Matter of Mace v Owl Wire & Cable Co., 284 AD2d at 675 ), the character of the administrative proceedings does not define the contractual relationship between the insured and insurer under a workers’ compensation insurance policy.