Gorbea v. Verizon N.Y. Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 January 2022
• Docket Number: 532321
• Citation: 201 A.D.3d 1168,156 N.Y.S.3d 927 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Sonya GORBEA, Appellant, v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC. et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

201 A.D.3d 1168

156 N.Y.S.3d 927 (Mem)

In the Matter of the Claim of Sonya GORBEA, Appellant,

v. VERIZON NEW YORK INC. et al., Respondents.Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

532321

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

Calendar Date: November 22, 2021

Decided and Entered: January 13, 2022

Sonya Gorbea, New York City, appellant pro se.

White and Williams LLP, Pleasantville (Scott H. Casher of counsel), for Verizon New York Inc. and others, respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Aarons, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 18, 2020, which denied claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review.

In 2018, claimant filed a DC–120 form (discharge or discrimination complaint) pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, alleging that the employer had breached claimant's employment contract, that the employer's denial of several short-term disability applications that she had filed was erroneous and that the employer had discriminated against her due to her disabilities. In a November 2019 decision, the Workers’ Compensation Board credited the employer's evidence that claimant was terminated for valid business reasons and, therefore, determined that claimant had failed to demonstrate a causal nexus between her pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits and her termination.¹ Thereafter, claimant applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review. In a May 2020 decision, the Board denied claimant's application, and claimant's appeal from that decision ensued.

We affirm. Inasmuch as the record reflects that claimant appealed only from the Board's May 2020 decision denying her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review, the merits of its November 2019 decision are not properly before us (see Matter of Campos v. Federal Express Corp., 181 A.D.3d 1118, 1119, 118 N.Y.S.3d 458 [2020] ; Matter of Seck v. Quick Trak, 158 A.D.3d 919, 920–921, 71 N.Y.S.3d 649 [2018] ). Consequently, "our inquiry is limited to whether the Board's denial of claimant's application was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion" ( Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch., 148 A.D.3d 1500, 1500, 49 N.Y.S.3d 316 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 937, 63 N.Y.S.3d 744, 85 N.E.3d 1018 [2017] ; see Matter of Singletary v. Schiavone Constr. Co., 174 A.D.3d 1240, 1242, 104 N.Y.S.3d 435 [2019] ). Claimant did not produce any newly discovered evidence or otherwise demonstrate that the Board failed to consider relevant issues and evidence before it. Inasmuch as the record does not...