material misrepresentation violation in New York

2019"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 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2011] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Ridgeway v RGRTA Regional Tr.

2016“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 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2011] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Poulton v Griffin Mfg.

2021The court also properly declined to preclude plaintiff's newly disclosed experts from testifying at trial since plaintiff's disclosures were timely, and, rather than advancing new theories to support plaintiff's case, the experts merely interpreted plaintiff's cognitive deficits ( see Haynes v City of New York , 145 AD3d 603, 606 [1st Dept 2016]; Rivera v New York City Hous.

2021The court also properly declined to preclude plaintiff's newly disclosed experts from testifying at trial since plaintiff's disclosures were timely, and, rather than advancing new theories to support plaintiff's case, the experts merely interpreted plaintiff's cognitive deficits ( see Haynes v City of New York , 145 AD3d 603, 606 [1st Dept 2016]; Rivera v New York City Hous.

2019Serv. , 68 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2009]).

2011Serv., 68 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2009]; Matter of Dory v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 64 AD3d 848, 849 [2009]).

2012“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 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2011] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Gillan v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 88 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2011]).

2012“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 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2011] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Gillan v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 88 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2011]).

2016Given claimant’s failure to disclose his previous injuries and the related schedule loss of use awards, the Board’s determination that he made a material misrepresentation in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (1) is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Siddon v Advance Energy Tech., 98 AD3d 1202 , 1203 [2012]; Matter of Poli v Taconic Correctional Facility, 83 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2011]).

2012Accordingly, 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 AD3d at 1340 ).

2021Moreover, given the Board's conclusion that claimant's embellishment of his condition to [*3]the medical examiner was egregious, a finding that is supported by the surveillance footage, we cannot conclude that the imposition of the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits is disproportionate to claimant's material misrepresentations ( see Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free , 1 NY3d 258, 267 [2003]; Matter of Poupore v Clinton County Hwy.

2011Serv., 68 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2009]; Matter of Dory v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 64 AD3d 848, 849 [2009]).

2007Experts, 27 AD3d 921, 922 [2006]).