New York Public Personnel Law: Existence of conflicting evidence in an administrative proceeding requires conducting a hearing “to fully develop the record”

January 07, 2011

Existence of conflicting evidence in an administrative proceeding requires conducting a hearing “to fully develop the record”

Existence of conflicting evidence in an administrative proceeding requires conducting a hearing “to fully develop the record”
Matter of Carr v Cairo Fire Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 00056, Appellate Division, Third Department

James A. Carr, a volunteer firefighter, suffered an injury to the back of his right hand when it was struck by a rotating hose reel handle.

Initially unable to work, while recovering Carr resumed working as a house painter, apparently performing all of his work with his left hand. Subsequently Carr complained of numbness and significant pain in both hands and applied for Workers’ Compensation Benefits.

In the Workers’ Compensation hearing that followed the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] asked Carr two questions but no sworn testimony was taken, nor was Carr cross-examined by the insurance carrier's attorney notwithstanding the attorney's requesting a "full development of the record with testimony of [Carr] and treating physician,.

Rather, the WCLJ ruled that the carrier had no right to medical testimony and neither Carr’s testimony nor medical testimony was necessary. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the decision of the WCLJ, and the insurance carrier appealed.

The carrier argued that the WCLJ should have granted its request to develop the record by obtaining Carr's testimony and by cross-examining Carr's treating physician. The Appellate Division agreed, holding that "[E]ither the claimant or the employer or his insurance carrier may introduce witnesses . . . in compensation proceedings."

The court, noting that there was “conflicting medical evidence” and as “no formal testimony was taken at the . . . hearing,” ruled that the WCLJ’s denial of the insuance carrier's request to cross-examine Carr's attending physician to explore such issues “clearly prejudiced the employer."

The Appellate Division returned the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00056.htm

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.