Opinion
2012-09-27
In the Matter of the Claim of Kimberly A. SIDDON, Appellant, v. ADVANCE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Kimberly A. Siddon, Stillwater, appellant pro se. Stockton, Barker & Mead, LLP, Albany (John B. Paniccia of counsel), for Advance Energy Technologies and another, respondents.
Kimberly A. Siddon, Stillwater, appellant pro se. Stockton, Barker & Mead, LLP, Albany (John B. Paniccia of counsel), for Advance Energy Technologies and another, respondents.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., MALONE JR., STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.
STEIN, J.
Appeal from an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 27, 2011, which ruled that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a and disqualified her from receiving future wage replacement benefits.
In November 2006, claimant injured her back at work and applied for workers' compensation benefits. After claimant testified that she had never been treated by a physician for any back pain or injuries and had never missed any work due to back pain prior to her 2006 injury, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier raised an issue of fraud and challenged claimant's entitlement to benefits with evidence of prior back injuries and medical treatment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge, although admittedly troubled by claimant's testimony, awarded her benefits. On review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, concluding that claimant had violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a by failing to reveal her prior back injuries and, in an amended decision, assessed the mandatory penalty of forfeiture of benefits attributable to her misrepresentations and disqualified her from receiving future benefits. Claimant now appeals.
We note that claimant's pro se notice of appeal refers to an incorrect date of filing of the Board's amended decision. Inasmuch as there has been no claim of prejudice, we will disregard the error and address the merits of claimant's appeal ( seeCPLR 5520[c] ).
We affirm. “The Board's determination as to whether a claimant has made a material misrepresentation in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Hamza v. Steinway & Sons, 88 A.D.3d 1033, 1033, 930 N.Y.S.2d 103 [2011] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Gillan v. New York State Dept. of Corrections, 88 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 930 N.Y.S.2d 101 [2011] ). Here, although claimant initially testified that she had never injured her back, sought treatment for back pain or missed any time from work due to back pain prior to her 2006 injury, her medical records reflect several complaints of back pain and treatment for back injuries between 1993 and 2006, resulting in numerous missed days from work. Claimant's later testimony that she did not recall the injuries or the missed time from work when she initially testified created a credibility issue for the Board's resolution ( see Matter of Poli v. Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 A.D.3d 1339, 1339–1340, 921 N.Y.S.2d 694 [2011];Matter of Gillan v. New York State Dept. of Corrections, 88 A.D.3d at 1036, 930 N.Y.S.2d 101). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board's decision that claimant, by failing to disclose her history of back injuries and treatment, made a material misrepresentation in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a is supported by substantial evidence and it will not be disturbed ( see Matter of Poli v. Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 A.D.3d at 1340, 921 N.Y.S.2d 694). Further, the Board sufficiently set forth its reasons for permanently disqualifying claimant from receiving future benefits ( see Matter of Poli v. Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 A.D.3d at 1340, 921 N.Y.S.2d 694;Matter of Jacob v. New York City Tr. Auth., 26 A.D.3d 631, 632, 809 N.Y.S.2d 618 [2006] ).
ORDERED that the amended decision is affirmed, without costs.
LAHTINEN, J.P., MALONE JR., McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ., concur.