Osorio v. TVI Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 April 2021
• Docket Number: 531355
• Citation: 147 N.Y.S.3d 159,193 A.D.3d 1219
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Argenis OSORIO, Claimant, v. TVI INC. et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

193 A.D.3d 1219

147 N.Y.S.3d 159

In the Matter of the Claim of Argenis OSORIO, Claimant,

v. TVI INC. et al., Appellants.Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

531355

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

Calendar Date: March 9, 2021

Decided and Entered: April 8, 2021

Morrison Mahoney LLP, New York City (David H. Allweiss of counsel), for appellants.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Garry, P.J.

Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed October 31, 2019, which ruled that claimant sustained a causally-related occupational disease and set a date of disablement, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed January 7, 2020, which denied a request by the employer and its workers' compensation carrier for reconsideration and/or full Board review.

Claimant, a pricing clerk for a retail store, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in April 2015 alleging that she had sustained injuries to her neck, back and both arms as the result of years of pricing, lifting, sorting and pushing clothes on racks for the employer. The C–3 form completed by claimant indicated that the date of the onset of her symptoms was to be established. In May 2015, an orthopedic surgeon diagnosed claimant with cervical derangement, bilateral shoulder impingement and tendonitis and indicated that her onset of symptoms occurred on May 21, 2015 (the date of the examination). A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found prima facie evidence for repetitive injuries to claimant's neck and shoulders, and the employer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier) asserted various defenses, including that, based upon claimant's representations that she first experienced pain in her neck in 2012, the underlying claim was time-barred and claimant failed to give the employer timely notice of her occupational disease.

Following claimant's testimony and the depositions of certain medical providers/evaluators, as well as various interim rulings and additional proceedings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found that claimant had sustained an occupational disease involving her cervical spine and both shoulders and set the date of disablement as May 21, 2015. Upon administrative review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The carrier's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review was denied, prompting these appeals.

We affirm. "A claim for workers' compensation benefits due to a disability caused by an occupational disease must be filed within two years after disablement and after the claimant knew or should have known that the disease is or was due to the nature of the employment" ( Matter of Walczak v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 188 A.D.3d 1524, 1524, 135 N.Y.S.3d 677 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Workers' Compensation Law § 28 ; Matter of Czachurski v. PAL Envtl., 189 A.D.3d 1866, 1867, 138 N.Y.S.3d 236 [2020] ).¹ "[T]he Board is afforded great latitude" in setting the date of disablement, and its resulting determination, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed ( Matter of Bunn v. Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc., 130 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 12 N.Y.S.3d 655 [2015] ; see Matter of Storm v. Phillips Light. Co., 117 A.D.3d 1312, 1313, 986 N.Y.S.2d 654 [2014] ). As this Court recently observed, the date of disablement "may acceptably reflect ‘the first date of causally[-]related treatment, the date on which the claimant first received a diagnosis indicating that the condition was work related, the date on which the claimant began to lose time from work due to the work-related disability, the date on which the claimant was advised by a physician to stop working due to the work-related disability, and the date on which the claimant actually stopped working because of that disability’ " ( Matter of Lewandowski v. Safeway Envtl. Corp., 190 A.D.3d 1072, 1077, 139 N.Y.S.3d 705 [2021], quoting Employer: Pumping Sols. Inc., 2015 WL 5026401, *3–5, 2015 N.Y. Wrk Comp LEXIS 8695, *9–13 [WCB No. G076 9490, Aug. 13, 2015]). Notably, "the Board is not bound to select the earliest possible date of disablement nor is it required to give preference to certain events over others" ( Matter of Leary v. NYC Bd. of Educ., 42 A.D.3d 712, 714, 839 N.Y.S.2d 616 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Hastings v. Fairport Cent. School Dist., 274 A.D.2d 660, 661, 710 N.Y.S.2d 455 [2000], lv dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 926, 721 N.Y.S.2d 602, 744 N.E.2d 137 [2000] ).

Here, the record reflects that claimant complained of intermittent pain in her neck, back and/or shoulders in 2012 and 2014 and underwent a course of physical therapy, and claimant testified that she was told by her treating physician in 2012 that her neck pain could possibly be related to her work. That said, it does not appear that claimant lost time from work as a result of such pain, and it was not until May 21, 2015 that a physician first opined that claimant's condition was causally related to her employment. Accordingly, although claimant was symptomatic prior to that date and may have...