| Matter of Giello v Providence Fire Dist. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10098 [57 AD3d 1294] |
| December 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Sandi Giello, Respondent, v Providence FireDistrict et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
—[*1] James Trauring & Assoc., L.L.C., Schenectady (Michael S. Joseph of counsel), for Sandi Giello,respondent. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel), for Workers'Compensation Board, respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed October 10, 2007,which ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a is inapplicable to Volunteer Firefighters'Benefit Law § 10.
Claimant, a waitress, was injured in March 2000 when she was involved in an automobile accidentwhile responding to an emergency call in her capacity as a volunteer firefighter. A Workers'Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) subsequently found claimant to be permanently partiallydisabled and awarded her benefits pursuant to Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law § 10. In2005, a hearing was conducted where claimant testified as to her physical limitations attributable to theaccident; the employer and its workers' compensation [*2]carrier(hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) presented videotape surveillance evidence onwhich claimant was recorded performing physical acts allegedly inconsistent with her claimedlimitations. The employer thereafter requested, among other things, that claimant be disqualified fromreceiving benefits for making false representations in violation of Workers' Compensation Law §114-a. The WCLJ determined that the employer's contention pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law§ 114-a was untimely and had been waived. On review, the Workers' Compensation Boardmodified the WCLJ's determination, finding that Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a is notapplicable to benefits awarded pursuant to Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law § 10. Theemployer now appeals and we affirm.
A volunteer firefighter who is injured in the line of duty is eligible for workers' compensationbenefits if he or she can demonstrate a loss of earnings capacity (see Matter of Weinstein v Somers Fire Dist., 37 AD3d 917, 918[2007]; Matter of Doesburg v Village ofStillwater, 11 AD3d 762, 763 [2004]). Both the Workers' Compensation Law and theVolunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law provide for criminal penalties for offering fraudulent information insupport of a claim (see Workers' Compensation Law § 114; Volunteer Firefighters'Benefit Law § 55). In 1996, the Legislature amended the Workers' Compensation Law to alsoinclude civil penalties for fraudulent claims by adding Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (L1996, ch 635). No such amendment was made to the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law. Nonetheless,the employer contends that Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a is applicable to the benefitsawarded to claimant here pursuant to Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law § 57[FN*]and, therefore, that false statements made by claimant regarding her alleged causally related disabilitiesshould disqualify her from receiving such benefits. Claimant argues that the Board correctly determinedthat those penalties are inapplicable to benefits received under Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law§ 10.
Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a provides for forfeiture of benefits and civil penaltieswhen a claimant makes false statements or representations regarding material facts "for the purpose ofobtaining [benefits] pursuant to section fifteen of this chapter, or for the purpose of influencingany determination regarding any such payment" (Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a [1][emphasis added]). We reject the employer's contention that the language limiting the application of thestatute to claims for benefits pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 was intended merelyto differentiate the forfeiture of wage replacement benefits from benefits for medical treatment or death,and not to exclude the corresponding loss of earnings benefits awarded to claimant under VolunteerFirefighters' Benefit Law § 10.
"A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the Legislature is presumed to mean what itsays and when the language of a statute is unambiguous, it is to be construed 'according to its naturaland most obvious sense, without resorting to an artificial or forced construction' " (Matter ofSchmidt v Roberts, 74 NY2d 513, 520 [1989], quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1,Statutes § 94). Stated otherwise, "when a statute is free of ambiguity, a court should construe itso as to give effect to its plain meaning" (id. at 520; see Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. vSilva, 91 NY2d 98, 106-107 [1997]; Matter of Amorosi v South Colonie [*3]Ind. Cent.School Dist., 9 NY3d 367, 372 [2007]).
Here, the plain language of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a unambiguously limits theapplication of the outlined penalties to wage replacement benefits awarded pursuant to Workers'Compensation Law § 15. If the Legislature had intended Workers' Compensation Law §114-a to apply to wage replacement benefits, generally, it could have employed less restrictive language(see Matter of Rodriguez v Burn-Brite MetalsCo., 1 NY3d 553, 555 [2003]). To reach the interpretation urged by the employer wouldrequire this Court to broaden the scope of the statute beyond its plain meaning. Thus, notwithstandingthe employer's arguments regarding the legislative intent with respect to the imposition of civil penalties,"[a]bsent ambiguity the courts may not resort to rules of construction to broaden the scope andapplication of a statute, because no rule of construction gives the court discretion to declare the intent ofthe law when the words are unequivocal" (Matter of Raritan Dev. Corp. v Silva, 91 NY2d at107 [internal quotation marks, citation and emphasis omitted]; see Matter of Amorosi v SouthColonie Ind. Cent. School Dist., 9 NY3d at 372). Accordingly, we conclude that, absent furtherlegislative action, Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a may not be applied to benefits receivedunder Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law § 10.
The parties' remaining contentions have been considered and found to be either academic orwithout merit.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote *: Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law§ 57 incorporates all provisions of Workers' Compensation Law article 7 that are notinconsistent with the provisions of the Volunteer Firefighters' Benefit Law.