Claimant, a court reporter, sustained injuries when she fell from her chair at work resulting in the disturbing hardware from a lumbar fusion surgery earlier performed to address a non-work-related injury.
The hardware was later surgically removed and Claimant returned to work for the employer upon her physician's approval. Then terminated from her position, Claimant then worked sporadically as a freelance court reporter until she eventually ceased all employment. Ultimately the employer and its carrier [Carrier] raised the issues of Claimant's eligibility for Workers' Compensation Benefits.
After a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] concluded that Claimant had causally-related wage losses and awarded benefits at temporary total disability rates and a comparable tentative rate for various dates over the relevant time periods, while "marking certain periods of time as lacking medical evidence" to support the claim.
Carrier appealed and the Workers' Compensation Board [Board] reversed the WCLJ's ruling and denied Claimant's application for workers' compensation benefits. Essentially the Board held that Claimant's separation from employment was not causally-related within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Law. Claimant appealed the Board's decision.
Citing Matter of Tomaine v City of Poughkeepsie Police, 178 AD3d 1256, the Appellate Division sustained the Board's determination.
The court's decision also noted "Whether [Claimant] has voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market is a factual issue, and the Board's determination of that issue will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence."
The Appellate Division's decision further pointed out that in the event that a "claimant's loss of employment is due to a layoff — a factor other than his [or her] work-related injury — he [or she] bears the burden of establishing by substantial evidence that his [or her] disability contributed to his [or her] continued unemployment", citing (Matter of Gross v BJ's Wholesale Club, 29 AD3d 1051 and other decisions.
Noting that it is well settled that the Board, as the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses, has broad authority to resolve factual issues based on its determinations concerning the credibility of witnesses and drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record.
The Appellate Division opined that in the event the record evidence is inconsistent, "the Board is warranted in rejecting testimony that fails to find support in documentary or other impartial evidence".
As the Board had found Claimant's testimony "to be largely inconsistent and unsupported," the Appellate Division concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Claimant's initial separation from employment and her continued unemployment thereafter was "voluntary and not due to her disability."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.