At page 921 Reviewing board discretion regarding unraised arguments6 citing cases“it lies within the board's discretion to entertain arguments not raised before the wclj”
- Matter of Knapp v. Bette & Cring LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 8218 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).publishedExperts , 27 AD3d 921, 921 [2006]).
- Matter of Adams v. Blackhorse Carriers, Inc., 142 A.D.3d 1273 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).publishedExperts, 27 AD3d 921, 921 [2006]).
- Claim of Donovan v. Boces Rockland Cnty., 63 A.D.3d 1310 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).publishedExperts, 27 AD3d 921, 921 [2006]; Matter of McNeil v Geary, 105 AD2d 539, 540-541 [1984]).
- Claim of Robbins v. Jerusalem, 60 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).published Experts, 27 AD3d 921, 922 [2006]; Matter of Tomlin v L & B Contr.
- Claim of Hailoo v. State Ins. Fund, 45 A.D.3d 1200 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).publishedExperts, 27 AD3d 921, 921 [2006]), the procedures it employs must nevertheless comply with basic elements of due process (see Matter of Ickes v Sayville Animal Hosp., 40 AD3d at 1190 ; Matter of Transcontinental Refrigerated Lines v Worker…
- Claim of Stilwell v. Marriott, 45 A.D.3d 1033 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).publishedExperts, 27 AD3d 921, 921 [2006]; Matter of Duff v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 13 AD3d 875, 877 [2004]; Matter of Webb v TAD Temporaries, 274 AD2d 767, 769 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 768 [2000]).
At page 922 Finding intentional misrepresentations under workers' compensation law5 citing casesand consideration of claimant’s past compensation cases in rendering its decision here (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 123). Turning to the merits, a review…
- Matter of Yolas v. New York City Tr. Auth., 224 A.D.3d 1112 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2024).publishedExperts , 27 AD3d 921, 922 [3d Dept 2006]).
- Matter of Nappi v. Verizon N.Y., 205 A.D.3d 1181 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2022).published Experts , 27 AD3d 921, 922 [2006]).
- Claim of Robbins v. Jerusalem, 60 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009).published Experts, 27 AD3d 921, 922 [2006]; Matter of Tomlin v L & B Contr.
- Claim of Husak v. New York City Transit Auth., 40 A.D.3d 1249 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).publishedExperts, 27 AD3d 921, 922 [2006]).
v.
Midas Service Experts, Workers' Compensation Board
Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 17, 2004, which ruled that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a and disqualified him from receiving wage replacement benefits.
Claimant, the manager of an automotive shop, sustained injuries to his head, neck and back in 2001. Following several hearings, his case was established and he began receiving workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board, however, ultimately determined that claimant had made material misrepresentations relative to his medical history and, as such, disqualified him from receiving wage replacement benefits. Claimant now appeals and we affirm.
Initially, we reject claimant’s allegation that his due process rights were violated. Contrary to his contention, the issue as to whether claimant knowingly misrepresented material facts was raised during the May 2002 hearing. In any event, “[i]t lies within the Board’s discretion to entertain arguments not raised before the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge” (Matter of Fina v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 7 AD3d 939, 940 [2004]). Additionally, we discern no error in the Board’s review[*922] and consideration of claimant’s past compensation cases in rendering its decision here (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 123).
Turning to the merits, a review of the record reveals substantial evidence in support of the Board’s determination that claimant made intentional misrepresentations, both to his attending physicians and while testifying herein, in an apparent attempt to downplay the significance of prior accidents and his preexisting medical condition. Accordingly, we will not disturb the Board’s decision that claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (see Matter of McCormack v Eastport Manor Constr, 19 AD3d 826, 828 [2005]; Matter of Bowes v Gulinello’s Town & Country, 3 AD3d 805, 806 [2004]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.