Manning v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1996
• Citation: 650 N.Y.S.2d 431,233 A.D.2d 803
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Robert MANNING Jr., Respondent, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 431

650 N.Y.S.2d 431

233 A.D.2d 803

In the Matter of the Claim of Robert MANNING Jr., Respondent, v. NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION et al., Appellants Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Nov. 27, 1996.

Philip J. Rooney, New York City, for appellants.

Robert J. Manning Jr., Sacramento, CA, in person.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General (Howard B. Friedland, of counsel), New York City, for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.

Before MERCURE, J.P., and YESAWICH, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ.

CARPINELLO, Justice.

Appeals from two decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed February 24, 1995 and December 27, 1995.

Nearly 35 years ago, in February 1962, claimant was rendered a quadriplegic as the result of a work-related accident that occurred while claimant was in the employ of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Following the accident, claimant's wife, a registered nurse, provided claimant with a range of nursing and related services. Claimant thereafter sought reimbursement for the value of his wife's services pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 13(a). In an earlier decision, we held that claimant was entitled to reimbursement of the value of these services and remitted the case to the Workers' Compensation Board to calculate the reasonable value of those services (198 A.D.2d 561, 603 N.Y.S.2d 214).

On remittal, hearings were conducted before a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ). Claimant and his wife had moved from St. Lawrence County to California in 1985; therefore, in determining the value of the services provided by claimant's wife, the WCLJ made separate findings as to the value of the services rendered in California and the value of the services rendered in New York. The WCLJ found that during the time the parties resided in New York, claimant's wife provided registered nursing services for four hours per day, practical nursing services for four hours per day and attendant services for eight hours per day. The WCLJ also found that during the time the parties resided in California, claimant's wife provided registered nursing services for 10 hours per day and attendant services for six hours per day. This decision was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board.

In a subsequent decision, the WCLJ clarified his prior decision by calculating practical nursing fees in the St. Lawrence County area based upon the rate paid to registered nurses, and by using a tentative rate for registered nursing fees in California. The WCLJ awarded claimant $504,808.06 for nursing care in New York and $695,840.97 for nursing care in California. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision and further found that the employer's insurance carrier was entitled to a credit of $387,698.20, based upon claimant's third-party recovery. The employer and its insurance carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to the employer) appeal these decisions of the Board, claiming that they are not supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Law § 13(a) provides that "[t]he employer shall be liable for the payment of the expenses of medical * * * or other attendance or treatment * * * for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require". We have previously held that home care or nursing services provided by a claimant's spouse are reimbursable (see, Matter of Manning v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 198 A.D.2d 561, 603 N.Y.S.2d 214, supra; Matter of Haney v. Schiavone Constr., 195 A.D.2d 628, 629, 599 N.Y.S.2d 765). Further, we have noted that "[t]he Workers' Compensation Law is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed so as to effectuate the economic and humanitarian objects of the act" (Matter of Simpson v. Glen Aubrey Fire Co., 86 A.D.2d...