Opinion
2014-03-6
In the Matter of the Claim of Eddie WEST, Appellant, v. TITAN EXPRESS, INC., et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
Law Offices of Joseph A. Romano, Yonkers (Anthony Brooks–Morgese of counsel), for appellant. Steven M. Licht, Special Funds Conservation Committee, Albany (Jill B. Singer of counsel), for Special Fund for Reopened Cases, respondent.
Law Offices of Joseph A. Romano, Yonkers (Anthony Brooks–Morgese of counsel), for appellant. Steven M. Licht, Special Funds Conservation Committee, Albany (Jill B. Singer of counsel), for Special Fund for Reopened Cases, respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, SPAIN and , JJ.; LAHTINEN, J., vouched in.
, J.
Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed November 6, 2012, which denied claimant's request for a variance.
The full background of this matter is set forth in a previous decision of this Court (112 A.D.3d 1279, 976 N.Y.S.2d 899 [2013] ). Briefly stated, claimant's physician sought a variance from the Workers' Compensation Board Medical Treatment Guidelines authorizing claimant to receive certain injections. In November 2012, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed a decision by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge that had authorized these injections. Claimant appealed. In April 2013, while the appeal was pending, but prior to the filing of the record and briefs, the Board issued a new decision that “amends and supersedes” the November 2012 decision—reaching the same ultimate conclusion, but upon a distinctly different analysis ( Employer: Titan Express Inc., 2013 WL 1784247, *1, 2013 N.Y. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 3364, *1 [WCB No. 3041 0151, Apr. 17, 2013] ). Despite the timing, this Court was at no point informed of the amended decision and, therefore, upon discovering its existence, requested further briefing of the issues posed by these unusual procedural circumstances (112 A.D.3d at 1280, 976 N.Y.S.2d 899). Supplemental briefs were thereafter timely submitted by the Board and the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, but no brief was submitted on behalf of claimant.
Initially, we find that it was within the Board's statutory authority and broad discretion to issue the amended decision (Workers' Compensation Law § 123; see Matter of Schroeter v. Grand Hyatt Hotel, 262 A.D.2d 725, 726, 691 N.Y.S.2d 635 [1999];Matter of Buchanon v. Adirondack Steel Casting Co., 175 A.D.2d 971, 971, 573 N.Y.S.2d 775 [1991] ). Although there are circumstances in which the pendency of an appeal may limit the Board's continuing jurisdiction ( see Matter of Webb v. TAD Temporaries, 274 A.D.2d 767, 769, 711 N.Y.S.2d 221 [2000],lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 768, 721 N.Y.S.2d 605, 744 N.E.2d 141 [2000];Matter of Hutton v. Ford Motor Co., 3 A.D.2d 169, 171, 159 N.Y.S.2d 874 [1957];Matter of Jones v. Schenectady Boys Club, Inc., 276 App.Div. 879, 879–880, 93 N.Y.S.2d 764 [1949] ), no such limitation is imposed where a pending appeal has not yet been perfected or has been withdrawn, or where there has been no resulting prejudice ( see Matter of Nikolic v. Regent Wall St. Hotel, 30 A.D.3d 885, 887, 818 N.Y.S.2d 625 [2006];Matter of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc., 286 A.D.2d 840, 840–841, 731 N.Y.S.2d 85 [2001];Matter of Parella v. Harrod Steel Erection Co., 19 A.D.2d 451, 453, 243 N.Y.S.2d 982 [1963],lv. denied13 N.Y.2d 600, 247 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 196 N.E.2d 890 [1964];Matter of Fabregas v. Staten Is. R.T. Ry. Co., 7 A.D.2d 948, 949, 182 N.Y.S.2d 188 [1959];see also22 NYCRR 800.18[b][2] ). Here, claimant's appeal had not yet been perfected, the amended decision was apparently intended to revise and correct the previous analysis, and the amendment did not alter the substantive result ( compare Matter of Farcasin v. PDG, Inc., 286 A.D.2d at 841, 731 N.Y.S.2d 85).
Nonetheless, the amended decision, which by its terms superseded the initial decision, renders the present appeal moot. Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed ( compare Matter of Bleakley v. Verizon Servs. Group, 104 A.D.3d 1099, 1100, 961 N.Y.S.2d 924 [2013];Matter of Morrison v. T & D Painting, LLC, 53 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 861 N.Y.S.2d 867 [2008] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs. ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN and STEIN, JJ., concur; Spain, J., not taking part.