| Matter of Robinson v Interstate Natl. Dealer |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03343 [50 AD3d 1325] |
| April 17, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of John Robinson, Appellant, v InterstateNational Dealer et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, Syosset (Patrick M. Conroy of counsel), for InterstateNational Dealer and another, respondents.
Stein, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed August 1, 2006,which denied claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review.
Claimant sustained a work-related injury in May 2000, was subsequently classified aspermanently partially disabled and various awards were made. At a hearing conducted in January2004, the employer's workers' compensation carrier invoked Workers' Compensation Law§§ 114 and 114-a, contending that claimant had returned to work without disclosingthat information. Following additional hearings and an extensive review of the voluminousrecord, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that claimant violated Workers'Compensation Law § 114-a by providing false testimony and knowingly giving falseresponses to a recertification questionnaire filed on November 13, 2003 and disqualified claimantfrom receiving indemnity payments subsequent to that date. By decision filed January 30, 2006, apanel of the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. Claimant did not appeal from that decision.Thereafter, in February 2006, claimant applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review ofthe Board's [*2]January 2006 decision. The Board deniedclaimant's application, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. As claimant appeals from only the denial of his request for reconsideration and/orfull Board review, the merits of the Board's January 2006 decision are not properly before us (see Matter of Molina v Lopano, 47AD3d 1083, 1084 [2008]; Matter ofMarks v Evergreen Country Club, 27 AD3d 914, 915 [2006]). Accordingly, our reviewis limited to whether the Board abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary or capricious mannerin denying claimant's application (seeMatter of Doherty v Colgate Univ., 3 AD3d 810, 810-811 [2004]).
Here, claimant failed to set forth any compelling reason or new evidence that would warrantgranting his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Rather, a review of thatapplication reveals that claimant merely reargued the very issues that were thoroughlyconsidered, addressed and decided by the Board in its January 2006 decision. To the extent thatclaimant argues that certain witnesses were not credible or that he was not afforded a fairhearing, his remedy was to appeal the Board's January 2006 decision, which he failed to do.Under such circumstances, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion or acted in anarbitrary or capricious manner in denying his application.
Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision isaffirmed, without costs.