Matter of Mamaroneck Village Tile Distributors, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Board

• Decision Date: 17 December 2009
• Docket Number: 507157
• Citation: 68 A.D.3d 1423,893 N.Y.S.2d 641,2009 NY Slip Op 9358
• Parties: In the Matter of MAMARONECK VILLAGE TILE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

68 A.D.3d 1423

2009 NY Slip Op 9358

893 N.Y.S.2d 641

In the Matter of MAMARONECK VILLAGE TILE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Appellant, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent.

507157

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

Decided December 17, 2009.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed October 10, 2008, which denied the application of Mamaroneck Village Tile Distributors, Inc. for redetermination review of a stop-work order issued pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 141-a.

Lahtinen, J.

On September 12, 2008, an investigator for the Workers' Compensation Board, Glenn Muller, inquired at Mamaroneck Village Tile Distributors, Inc. as to whether the company had workers' compensation insurance. Muller made this inquiry because an individual had filed a C-3 form claiming to have been injured while working for Mamaroneck. The company's president, Jonathan Mammana, told Muller that the company had no employees and therefore did not have workers' compensation insurance. Muller entered a rear work area, which was shared by Mamaroneck with an ironworking company, where he observed two men both wearing T-shirts with the words "Mamaroneck Village Tile" printed on them. The men were cutting stone on a wet saw. Since the men did not answer when Muller asked a question in English, Muller spoke in Spanish and one man reportedly responded in Spanish indicating that he had worked for Mamaroneck for two years. Based upon this information, a stop-work order was issued that day against Mamaroneck.

Supported by an affidavit of Mammana, sworn to September 19, 2008 asserting that Mamaroneck had no employees, the company made an application seeking redetermination review of the order (see Workers' Compensation Law § 141-a [4] [a]). A hearing was held on October 3, 2008 before a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ). The Uninsured Employers' Fund produced Muller to testify in support of the stop-work order. Mammana then testified for Mamaroneck. The WCLJ credited the testimony of Muller and, in a decision filed October 10, 2008, upheld the stop-work order. Mamaroneck appeals.

Workers' Compensation Law § 141-a was enacted in 2007 to provide "the Chair additional enforcement authority against employers who do not properly provide coverage for their employees" (Minkowitz, Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 64, Workers' Compensation Law § 141-a, 2009 Pocket Part, at 96; see L 2007, ch 6, § 12). As relevant here, the statute deems the failure of an employer to carry workers' compensation insurance to be "an immediate serious danger to public health, safety or welfare sufficient to justify service by the chair of a stop-work order" (Workers' Compensation Law § 141-a [4] [a]). Expeditious review of a stop-work order is afforded under the statute. While the precise procedures for such review are not spelled out in detail in the statute, the procedures used by the Chair in this case after receiving the timely affidavit on behalf of Mamaroneck included conducting a prompt hearing before a WCLJ at which the Uninsured Employers' Fund set forth its proof in support of the stop-work order and Mamaroneck had an opportunity to produce evidence in support of its contention that it had no employees. A decision followed without delay. These procedures accorded ample due process protection to Mamaroneck (see Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335 [1976]; Matter of Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines v Workers' Compensation Bd., 269 AD2d 714, 716 [2000]).

Mamaroneck argues that the decision upholding the stop-work order and denying its application for redetermination was not supported by substantial evidence. Since there is no dispute that Mamaroneck did not have workers' compensation insurance, the dispositive issue narrows to whether substantial evidence supported the determination that the company had...