Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schmidt v. Falls Dodge, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 1, 2012Published

1Dissent

Ciparick, J. (dissenting).

Because I agree with the Workers’ Compensation Board (the Board) and the Appellate Division that a “schedule loss of use award” for a permanent partial disability is not linked to a particular time period, but rather is compensation for future loss of earnings without regard to present ability to work, and because I further believe that a schedule award should not be offset by a temporary disability award for present lost earnings, I respectfully dissent.

In Matter of Miller v North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. (1 AD3d 691 [3d Dept 2003]) the Appellate Division held…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Montgomery v. DanielsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Knight-Ridder Broadcasting, Inc. v. GreenbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Claim of Waters v. William J. Taylor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. Raynor v. Landmark ChryslerNew York Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. LaCroix v. Syracuse Executive Air Service, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API