§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Maureen Kigin, Appellant,v.State of New York Workers' Compensation Board et al., Respondents.

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 15,704 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"

  2. Board of Regents v. Roth

    408 U.S. 564 (1972)   Cited 14,647 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."

  3. Boreali v. Axelrod

    71 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 243 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding proper balance between health concerns and cost "is a uniquely legislative function"

  4. New York Central R.R. Co. v. White

    243 U.S. 188 (1917)   Cited 487 times
    Holding that workers' compensation laws do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment

  5. Gruber

    89 N.Y.2d 225 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 135 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's definition of term to be impermissible and remanding to the Board for further proceedings

  6. United States v. Stanley

    109 U.S. 3 (1883)   Cited 843 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2 did not authorize passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875

  7. Mtr. of Belmonte v. Snashall

    2 N.Y.3d 560 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 62 times
    Observing that agency interpretation is entitled to deference if interpretation involves “some type of specialized knowledge,” but that no deference is warranted where “the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis”

  8. Matter of Balcerak v. the County of Nassau

    94 N.Y.2d 253 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that possession of New York driver's license was insufficient

  9. Alonzo M. v. Probation Dept

    72 N.Y.2d 662 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 82 times
    Expressing concern that courts' inherent authority over their own records would be "dubious authority (upon which) to override so clear a legislative policy" set forth in a sealing statute

  10. People v. Graham

    55 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 100 times

    Argued January 4, 1982 Decided February 18, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, RICHARD G. DENZER, J. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney ( Mark Dwyer, Robert M. Pitler and Bruce Allen of counsel), for appellant. William E. Hellerstein for respondent. FUCHSBERG, J. We are called upon to decide whether the court of first instance in this case was free to refuse defendant's request, made pursuant to CPL 60.45 and 710.70, that it submit

  11. Section 324.2 - Medical treatment guidelines

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12 § 324.2   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Medical Treatment Guidelines. Regardless of the date of accident or date of disablement, treatment of on the job injuries, illnesses, or occupational diseases shall be consistent with the applicable Medical Treatment Guidelines set forth herein. The operative Medical Treatment Guidelines shall be the Medical Treatment Guidelines in place on the date on which medical services are rendered. All Treating Medical Providers shall treat all existing and new workers' compensation injuries, illnesses