![]() |
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
VACCINE ACT PETITIONER WORKERS CITY YORK APPELLANT RECOVERY ENFORCING LILY ATKINSON RESPONDENT MEMORANDUM COURT COMPENSATION LAW JUDGEMENT JUDGE MATTER PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION COSTS USC AWARD PROHIBITING SUPREME RYAN NY2D SESS USCCAN PAYMENT PRIVATE |
2 No. 37
In the Matter of Lily Atkinson,
Respondent,
v.
City of New York,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 32
March 27, 2001
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Linda H. Young, for appellant.
David Godosky, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner Lily Atkinson received a rubella vaccination as part of her
employment as a health care worker for the City of New York. As a
result of a reaction to the vaccine, petitioner developed chronic
arthritis. The New York State Workers' Compensation Board awarded her
compensation at a temporary rate of $100 per week. Petitioner also
filed a claim for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury
Program ("Vaccine Act") (see, 42 USC § 300aa-1 et seq.). When
awarding Atkinson the money, the Federal Court of Claims stated that
the award included only sums "not compensated" by her workers'
compensation program.
The City of New York filed a workers' compensation lien against
petitioner's Vaccine Act recovery (see, Workers' Compensation Law
29(1)). Petitioner sent a notice of rejection of the lien, arguing
that the Vaccine Act judgment was not subject to lien because it had
not been obtained from a responsible third party, and that the City's
attempt to impose a lien on the award violated Federal law. Petitioner
then commenced the present article 78 proceeding, seeking a judgment
prohibiting the City from enforcing the lien. Supreme Court granted
petitioner a judgment of prohibition, and the Appellate Division
affirmed.
SNIPPETS:
|
| | | |