is required as a matter of law. Defendants have also made no factual allegation that Baxter misinterpreted the letter, failed to grasp that Guard’s exercise of its right to file an action would extinguish his right to do so, or otherwise had any objection to Guard’s pursuit of this action. (To the contrary, Baxter has retained Guard’s counsel, and appears to be cooperating with Guard in the case.) The cases upon which defendants rely are distinguishable from the instant facts. See e.g., Sclafani v. Eastman Kodak, 188 Misc.2d 64, 727 N.Y.S.2d 277 (Sup.Ct. New York County 2011) (an insurer’s utter failure to provide notice of potential assignment to employee prevents automatic assignment under Section 29(2)); In re Matzner, 96 Misc.2d 198, 408 N.Y.S.2d 762 (Sup.Ct. Queens County 1978) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Under the circumstances
holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future holding that the debtors knowing act of failing to obtain workers compensation insurance so that the employer owed an employee a debt after the employee suffered a workplace injury was not the sort of willful and malicious injury required for nondischargeability under  523a6 because it cannot not be said that the employer intended for the employee to suffer a fall or that there was an unbroken chain of events leading from the employers intentional act to the employees physical injury holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga  349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action holding that a note delivered by an employees mother which stated that the employee was having a lot of pain in her side and would not be able to work that day and the mothers statement that the employee was sick were insufficient as a matter of law to inform the employer that the employees request to take time off was for a serious health condition within the meaning of the fmla holding that where an employee objects to the insurers settlement of his causes of action a letter from the insurer that merely told the unsophisticated employee that it intended to commence an action against the third party unless the employee contacted it within 30 days without any indication that the employees failure to do so would forfeit and assign his rights to the insurer was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 292 in light of the liberal construction to be given the workers compensation law to benefit the beneficiaries thereof  the employees