LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

IN THE MATTER OF LILY ATKINSON v CITY OF NEW YORK Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: IN THE MATTER OF LILY ATKINSON, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0032, Compensation, Vaccine Act, Petitioner, Workers, City, York, Appellant, Recovery, Enforcing, Lily Atkinson, Respondent, Memorandum, Compensation Law, Judgement, Judge, Matter, Publication, Appellate Division, Costs, Usc, Award, Prohibiting, Supreme, Ryan, Ny2d, Sess, Usccan, Payment, Private , ContentID: 120248751

Case Documents
1 2001-03-27 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120661
2 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


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:
  • In the Matter of Lily Atkinson, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant.
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • 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
  • The New York State Workers' Compensation Board awarded her compensation at a temporary rate
  • Petitioner also filed a claim for compensation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury
  • When awarding Atkinson the money, the Federal Court of Claims stated that the award included
  • The City of New York filed a workers' compensation lien against petitioner's Vaccine Act
  • Petitioner sent a notice of rejection of the lien, arguing that the Vaccine Act judgment was
  • Petitioner then commenced the present article 78 proceeding, seeking a judgment prohibiting
  • Supreme Court granted petitioner a judgment of prohibition, and the Appellate Division
  • The City argues that it has a right to enforce the workers' compensation lien, since the
  • Under these circumstances, we choose to interpret the Workers' Compensation Law to avoid
  • Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
  •    |