A DISFIGURING OUTCOME?
In Fleming v. Graham, Cedric Fleming was injured when the van in which he was riding collided with a school bus driven by an employee of Evergreen Bus Service.
Fleming sustained scars on his forehead and right upper eyelid and it was unclear whether his scars were correctable. Since New York's Workers Compensation Law allows injured workers to file a negligence case when they suffer "permanent and severe facial disfigurement," the Kings County Supreme Court denied his employer's request to dismiss the case, citing "issues of fact" On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed.
When the dispute reached our state's highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals found Fleming's injuries didn't meet the law's "severity" standard because his scarring wasn't shocking, unsightly, nor detrimentally altered his "natural beauty, symmetry or appearance."
Beauty was in the eyes of those beholders.
For a copy of the Court of Appeals' decision, please use this link: Fleming v. Graham
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2312
Comments
This decision is ridiculous.
The judges on the court of appeals have lost it and this case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The severity of Fleming's injuries should have been addressed at trial. The court's decision should not have been based on mere photographs which were included in the record.
"Oh, you don't look that bad," is not a workable legal standard.
Posted by: Sy Mann | June 26, 2008 10:31 AM
Exactly Sy,
The severity of disfigurement, by the court's own supposed standard, is a question of fact. A jury should be able to reasonably ascertain whether or not the injuries are a severe disfigurement by looking directly at the plaintiff. The Court treats it as if it was a question of law.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | June 26, 2008 11:15 AM
"I'z knowz it, whenz Iz seez it."
It's worked for porn!
Posted by: Tomas | June 26, 2008 1:51 PM