Oparaji v. Rattles

• Decision Date: 10 January 2019
• Docket Number: 526894
• Citation: 168 A.D.3d 1209,89 N.Y.S.3d 924 (Mem)
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Maurice OPARAJI, Appellant, v. BOOKS & RATTLES et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 1209

89 N.Y.S.3d 924 (Mem)

In the Matter of the Claim of Maurice OPARAJI, Appellant,

v. BOOKS & RATTLES et al., Respondents.Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

526894

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

Calendar Date: December 12, 2018

Decided and Entered: January 10, 2019

Maurice Oparaji, Rosedale, appellant pro se.

William O'Brien, State Insurance Fund, New York City (Rudolph Rosa DiSant of counsel), for Books & Rattles and another, respondents.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Devine and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Devine, J.

In 2008, claimant injured his neck and chest at work and his claim for workers' compensation benefits was established. The claim was later amended in 2010 to include injuries to both arms. In 2014, claimant filed a request for further action raising the issue of a causally-related heart condition, hypertension

and mitral regurgitation. In August 2017, a panel of the Workers' Compensation Board decided that claimant had not demonstrated a causal relationship between his work accident and heart condition, hypertension

or mitral regurgitation. Claimant unsuccessfully applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review of that decision, and he now appeals from the denial of that application.

Inasmuch as claimant has only appealed from the decision denying his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review, the merits of the Board's underlying decision are not properly before us (see Matter of Seck v. Quick Trak , 158 A.D.3d 919, 920, 71 N.Y.S.3d 649 [2018] ; Matter of Onuoha v. BJs Club 165 , 139 A.D.3d 1274, 1275, 31 N.Y.S.3d 679 [2016] ). Therefore, our review is limited to whether the Board's denial of the application was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. , 143 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 38 N.Y.S.3d 447 [2016], lv dismissed 29 N.Y.3d 965, 51 N.Y.S.3d 498, 73 N.E.3d 856 [2017], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct 993, 200 L.Ed.2d 251 [2018] ; Matter of Sheng v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. , 131 A.D.3d 1283, 1284, 16 N.Y.S.3d 92 [2015], lv dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 1060, 22 N.Y.S.3d 416, 43 N.E.3d 774 [2015] ). The record reflects that the Board considered the evidence and issues before it, and claimant did not demonstrate the existence of newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition in support of his application (see Matter of Amaker v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Transp. , 144 A.D.3d 1342, 1343, 40 N.Y.S.3d 802 [2016] ; Matter of Woods v. New York State Thruway Auth. , 93 A.D.3d 1050, 1051, 941 N.Y.S.2d 292 [2012], lv dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 1086, ...