slidewqp.blogg.se

Additionally, a claimant's false statement need not affect the compensability of the injury to be material and thus constitute a violation under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a rather, it need only be significant to the existence of his or her claim ( see Matter of Losurdo v Asbestos Free, 1 NY3d 258, 265 ). The Board's determination as to whether a claimant has violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record ( see Matter of McCormack v Eastport Manor Constr., 19 AD3d 826, 828 Matter of Amster v New York City Sheriff's Off., 17 AD3d 789, 790 Matter of Michaels v Towne Ford, 9 AD3d 733, 734 ).

Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the decision, finding that claimant had violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and was therefore disqualified from receiving wage replacement benefits. After a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that claimant had sustained a compensable injury, had not violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. However, claimant soon admitted that he had fabricated that explanation and provided an accurate explanation of how he had sustained the injury. Claimant initially reported to his employer and two physicians that he sustained the injury when he slipped and fell on ice on the premises of the employer. Appeal from an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 26, 2004, which ruled that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and was disqualified from receiving wage replacement benefits.Ĭlaimant injured his knee during an altercation with a coworker which occurred at the conclusion of his shift on the employer's premises. In the Matter of the Claim of Gene Lopresti, Appellant, v Washington Mills et al., Respondents.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.Īs corrected through Wednesday, January 18, 2006 Matter of Lopresti v Mills (2005 NY Slip Op 08170) Matter of Lopresti v Mills