| Matter of Domenico v United Way |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00319 [69 AD3d 1061] |
| January 14, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Jennifer Domenico, Appellant, vUnited Way et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, Syracuse (David A. D'Agostino of counsel), for UnitedWay and another, respondents.
Peters, J.P. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed November25, 2008, which, among other things, denied claimant's request to move the case to a differentvenue.
Claimant, formerly an employee of United Way, submitted a claim for workers'compensation benefits after injuring her hand and wrist while performing her duties as abookkeeper. She was found to have a compensable partial disability but, when issuessubsequently arose regarding permanency and the degree of her disability, United Way and itsworkers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) and claimantwere directed to produce medical evidence relating to permanency and loss of use. The employerthereafter submitted an independent medical examination, but claimant did not. At a July 2008hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) again directed claimant toprovide medical evidence, on or before October 14, 2008, if she wished to controvert thatprovided by the employer, and also directed the employer to respond to claimant's requests fortravel reimbursements. The WCLJ noted as much in the resulting decision and continued thecase. Claimant appealed that decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, requesting that her[*2]case be assigned to a different WCLJ and/or transferred to adifferent district and arguing that the WCLJ improperly continued her case. The Board rejectedclaimant's arguments and affirmed the WCLJ's decision, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. We are unpersuaded that the Board erred in declining to transfer claimant's caseto a different WCLJ or to another district. Workers' Compensation Law § 20 (1) provides,in pertinent part, that a claim shall continue before the same WCLJ until a final determinationawarding or denying compensation, "except in the absence, inability or disqualification to act ofsuch [WCLJ], or for other good cause." A review of the record reveals that claimant was at alltimes treated fairly and, although she lived out of state for much of the pendency of theproceedings, the WCLJ consistently took steps to accommodate her. Contrary to claimant'ssuggestions, nothing in the record reveals that any proceedings were held ex parte or that therewas any bias on the part of the WCLJ. Claimant also argues that the hearing transcripts wereedited outside of her presence; however, each is certified as to its accuracy and claimant hasoffered nothing to support her assertions that the transcripts do not reflect what transpired at thehearings. In short, we find no reason to disturb the Board's finding that claimant failed to providea legitimate basis for transferring this matter to another WCLJ or a different district.
Claimant's remaining contentions are either not properly before us or have been found to bewithout merit.
Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.