| Matter of Smith v Albany County Sheriff's Dept. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 01559 [82 AD3d 1334] |
| March 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Raymond C. Smith, Respondent, vAlbany County Sheriff's Department et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board,Respondent. |
—[*1] Law Firm of Alex C. Dell, Albany (George P. Ferro of counsel), for Raymond C. Smith,respondent. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel), forWorkers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed November 13,2009, which, among other things, ruled that claimant sustained a compensable injury andawarded workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant, a correction officer, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging that hesuffered depression and anxiety due to harassment at his work place. The employer's workers'compensation carrier controverted the claim, but failed to file a prehearing conference statementas required by 12 NYCRR 300.38 (f) (1). As a result, the Workers' Compensation Law Judgeheld that the employer waived its defenses pursuant to 12 NYCRR 300.38 (f) (4) and, uponreview of the medical records submitted by claimant, established the claim for a mental injurycaused by work-related stress. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, giving rise to thisappeal by the employer and its carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer).[*2]
Contrary to the employer's contention, the waiver ofdefenses resulting from the failure to timely file a prehearing conference statement does notcreate a presumption relieving claimant of his obligation to demonstrate a compensable injury(see Matter of Coleman v SchenectadyCounty Dept. of Social Servs., 80 AD3d 837, 838 [2011]; 12 NYCRR 300.38 [f] [4]).Nor did the Board apply any such presumption here. Rather, the medical reports submitted byclaimant were considered and found to be sufficient to establish a claim for work-related stress.Specifically, claimant's records detailed the stress that he experienced and attributed it, in part, torumors spread at work that he had once committed rape, and to the accompanying threats andharassment from inmates and staff. The records were thus sufficient to sustain the conclusion thatthe stress that caused the injury was greater than that experienced by others working in similarcapacities (see Workers' Compensation Law § 2 [7]; Matter of Young v Pentax PrecisionInstrument Corp., 57 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2008]; Matter of Spencer v Time WarnerCable, 278 AD2d 622, 623 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 706 [2001]).
The employer also argues that the regulation imposing a waiver of defenses for failure to filea prehearing conference statement is an improper expansion of the statute. Again, we disagree.Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 117 (1), the Board is authorized to adoptregulations consistent with and supplemental to the provisions of the Workers' CompensationLaw, and we will uphold a regulation as long as it " 'has a rational basis and is not unreasonable,arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the statute under which it was promulgated' " (Matter ofEstate of Lutz v Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home, 301 AD2d 688, 691 [2003], lvdismissed 99 NY2d 651 [2003], quoting Kuppersmith v Dowling, 93 NY2d 90, 96[1999]). Here, the statutory purpose of the prehearing conference is to simplify and limit thefactual and legal issues (see Workers' Compensation Law § 25 [2-a] [b] [iii]). Theprehearing conference statement furthers this purpose by requiring the employer to include,among other things, an offer of proof for each defense raised (see 12 NYCRR 300.38 [f][2] [iii]). The requirement to file the statement is designed to "facilitate the just, speedy andefficient disposition of the claimant's right to workers' compensation benefits, includingsettlement" (12 NYCRR 300.38 [f] [1]). In our view, the resulting waiver of defenses for failingto file the statement is not an unreasonable expansion of the statute. Instead, it is a logicalsupplementation addressed to the very purpose of the statement and the prehearing conference,necessary for enforcement and reasonable in that it provides an escape upon a showing of goodfaith and due diligence. Moreover, it promotes the overall statutory framework of providinginjured employees a "swift and sure source of benefits" (Crosby v State of N.Y., Workers'Compensation Bd., 57 NY2d 305, 313 [1982]).
Kavanagh, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur; Cardona, P.J., not taking part. Ordered thatthe decision is affirmed, with costs to claimant.