ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

November 25, 2020

The Workers' Compensation Board's determination whether a claimant violated §114-a of the Workers' Compensation Law will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence

The Workers' Compensation Board [Board] rejected the employer's [Employer] claim the there were procedural errors in its employee's [Claimant] claims for benefits and said that the Board would exercise its discretion to grant review of the application filed by the Claimant in consideration of "Claimant's substantial completion of question number 13 on the application for workers' compensation benefits form." The Board then reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] holding that that Claimant had violated §114-a Workers' Compensation Law,  finding there was insufficient evidence to support the WCLJ's determination. The employer appealed the Board's decision.

The Appellate Division said that Employer principally argued that Claimant's response to question number 13 was not complete and that the Board therefore lacked the authority and discretion to review Claimant's application for benefits, citing 12 NYCRR 300.13(b).

The court rejected the Employer's argument, holding that the Board has the "authority to adopt reasonable rules consistent with and supplemental to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law," and the Chair of the Board may "make reasonable regulations consistent with the provisions of the statutory framework." 

Noting that Employer was correct that 12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [1] of the Board's regulations require an applicant seeking Board review "to fill out the RB-89 form completely and in the proper format," the Appellate Division said that the Board's regulations "do not mandate denial of an incomplete application for Board review." Rather, the court explained that the regulations provide that such an "application for review maybe denied" [sic]  by the Board, in its discretion, where the application "does not comply with prescribed formatting, completion and service submission requirements."

Considering Claimant's response to question number 13 on her application for Board review, which listed numerous documents in support of her administrative appeal, the Appellate Division held that the Board:

[1] acted within its discretion in granting review of Claimant's application: and

[2] acted within its discretion to excuse any alleged defects relating to the timeliness and proper service of Claimant's application for Board review.

Addressing the merits of Claimant's application for benefits, the Appellate Division pointed out that §114-a(1) of the Workers' Compensation Law provides that a claimant who, for the purpose of obtaining workers' compensation benefits, or to influence any determination related to payment thereof:

1. 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;"

2. For purposes of Workers' Compensation Law §114-a (1), a fact is material "so long as it is significant or essential to the issue or matter at hand;" and

3. An omission of material information "may constitute a knowing false statement or misrepresentation".

However, the Board, declared the Appellate Division, is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its determination as to whether a claimant violated §114-a Workers' Compensation Law "will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence."

After considering the evidence in the record the Appellate Division opined that the Board's finding that Claimant did not make a misrepresentation of a material fact to obtain workers' compensation benefits "is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed."

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06832.htm

 

November 24, 2020

Former Potter Town clerk arrested for the alleged theft of nearly $24,000 of Town monies

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Yates County District Attorney Todd Casella, and Yates County Sheriff Ronald Spike announced the arrest of former clerk of the Town of Potter Julie Brown for allegedly stealing nearly $24,000 in cash payments to the town.

Brown allegedly stole cash payments made to the town for property taxes and fees for marriage licenses, dog licenses, hunting permits, and building permits. She was employed by the town from January 1, 2018 until May 21, 2019, when she resigned.

Brown was charged with corrupting the government in the second degree (a Class C felony); grand larceny in the third degree / public servant (a Class C Felony); two counts of tampering with public records in the first degree (a Class D felony); scheme to defraud in the first degree (a Class E felony); and official misconduct (A Class A misdemeanor).

Arraigned in Yates County Court, Brown was released on her own recognizance. The arrest was a result of a joint investigation between the State Comptroller’s Office, the Yates County District Attorney’s Office and the Yates County Sheriff's Office.

Since taking office in 2007, Comptroller DiNapoli has been committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. 

Allegations of fraud involving public funds may be reported by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a report online at investigations@osc.ny.gov, or by mailing a report to the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

November 23, 2020

Hospital ransomware alert posted by Malwarebytes

While countries and states head back into lockdown due to rising rates of COVID-19, another kind of infection is bringing hospitals to their knees. In the last few months we’ve seen an increase in ransomware attacks on healthcare providers. Learn how these attacks affect hospitals. 

 

Keep reading 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor 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.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.