Legal Opinion
Claim of Spyhalsky v. Cross Construction
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 13, 2002PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Peters, J.
In this case of first impression, the issue distills to whether Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 (a) requires a workers’ compensation carrier to be liable for a procedure involving the extraction of sperm from an injured worker and intrauterine insemination of his wife where it has been determined that it is both medically necessary for procreation and that claimant is suffering from a causally related injury resulting in an inability to procreate without such procedure. We believe that it does.
In January 1995, claimant suffered a compensable work-related back…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Tobias v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Ward v. BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Claim of Douglas Smith v. Tompkins County CourthouseNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Regnier v. Industrial Com'n of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Claim of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Mace v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- Matter of Koniak v. Salamanca Board of Public UtilitiesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Claim of McCaffrey v. James L. Lewis, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018