Rosario v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | 527267 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Claim of Matthew ROSARIO, Claimant, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF N.Y. INC., et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
174 A.D.3d 1186
106 N.Y.S.3d 207
In the Matter of the Claim of Matthew ROSARIO, Claimant,
v.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF N.Y. INC., et al., Appellants.
Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
527267
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Calendar Date: June 7, 2019
Decided and Entered: July 18, 2019
Cherry, Edson & Kelly, LLP, Tarrytown (Ralph E. Magnetti of counsel), for appellants.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Donya Fernandez of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Devine and Rumsey, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Rumsey, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed December 12, 2017, which ruled, among other things, that claimant did not violate Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a.
Claimant worked for the employer as a mechanic doing heavy construction that entailed the use of pneumatic tools, such as
jackhammers, pavement breakers and rock drills. In January 2013, he filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits due to repetitive stress injuries that he sustained to his hands, elbows, shoulders and wrists. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) established his claim for an occupational disease of tendinitis and neuralgia to the bilateral elbows, forearms and wrists, with a date of disablement of February 4, 2013.
Extended proceedings were thereafter conducted in the case to ascertain if claimant had a schedule loss of use of his hands and/or upper extremities. Conflicting medical opinions were presented at the hearings that followed. During the course of the proceedings, the employer, through its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier), raised claimant's violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a. After hearing the testimony and viewing two videotapes, the WCLJ concluded that claimant exaggerated the extent of his injuries in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a and was permanently disqualified from receiving benefits. A panel of the Workers' Compensation Board, however, disagreed and found that claimant did not make a willful misrepresentation in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a. Accordingly, it returned the case to the WCLJ for a decision on schedule loss of use. The carrier appeals.
" Workers Compensation Law § 114–a(1) provides that a claimant who, for the purpose of obtaining disability compensation, or to influence any determination related to the payment thereof, knowingly makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact ... shall be disqualified from receiving any compensation directly attributable to such false statement or representation" ( Matter of Angora v. Wegman's Food...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brennan v. Vill. of Johnson City
...appeal dismissed 4 N.Y.3d 881, 798 N.Y.S.2d 725, 831 N.E.2d 970 [2005] ; cf. Matter of Rosario v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 174 A.D.3d 1186, 1187–1189, 106 N.Y.S.3d 207 [3d Dept. 2019] ). To the extent that claimant's remaining contentions are properly before us, they have been ......
-
Sanchez v. US Concrete
...v. Nassau Intercounty Express , 178 A.D.3d 1266, 1268, 115 N.Y.S.3d 530 [2019] ; Matter of Rosario v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 174 A.D.3d 1186, 1188–1189, 106 N.Y.S.3d 207 [2019] ). Claimant contends that the Board abused its discretion in denying consideration of her applicati......
-
Peck v. Donaldson Org.
...found to constitute material false representations within the meaning of the statute (see Matter of Rosario v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 174 A.D.3d 1186, 1187, 106 N.Y.S.3d 207 [2019] ; Matter of Swiech v. City of Lackawanna, 174 A.D.3d 1001, 1003–1004, 101 N.Y.S.3d 775 [2019] ......
-
Civil Serv. Emps. Ass'n v. N.Y. State Office of Children & Family Servs.
...[2004] ). As alleged in the verified petition and Sansky's affidavit, petitioners assert that Sansky was discharged from his employment 106 N.Y.S.3d 207 in retaliation for his reporting of an incident of neglect to the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs in June 2......