Bagnato v. Gen. Elec.

• Decision Date: 28 December 2017
• Docket Number: 524250
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Ricci BAGNATO, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

156 A.D.3d 1268
68 N.Y.S.3d 212

In the Matter of the Claim of Ricci BAGNATO, Appellant,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC et al., Respondents.

Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

524250

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: November 17, 2017
Decided and Entered: December 28, 2017

68 N.Y.S.3d 213

Buckley, Mendleson, Criscione & Quinn, PC, Albany (Brendan G. Quinn of counsel), for appellant.

Stockton, Barker & Mead, LLP, Troy (Sean T. Weber of counsel), for General Electric and another, respondents.

Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 10, 2016, which ruled that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits.

On June 26, 2014, claimant was moving a piece of equipment known as a stator bar horse when he allegedly sustained an injury to his right shoulder. According to claimant, this incident was witnessed by a fellow employee. Claimant last worked for the employer during the first week of July 2014 and was terminated from his position shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to the alleged injury. In August 2014, claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which the employer and its workers' compensation carrier controverted—contending, among other things, that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Following a hearing and the deposition of claimant's treating physician, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim for a work-related injury to claimant's right shoulder. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding that claimant's testimony was not credible and deeming the timing of the underlying claim to be "suspect." Specifically, the Board noted that claimant, who did not initially report the incident to the employer, neither sought treatment for the alleged injury nor filed a claim for workers' compensation...