| Matter of Poulton v Griffin Mfg. Co. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00530 [102 AD3d 1071] |
| January 31, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of David Poulton, Respondent, vGriffin Manufacturing Company, Appellant, and Uninsured Employers Fund,Respondent. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel),for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filedJanuary 30, 2012, which, among other things, ruled that claimant did not violateWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a.
Claimant, while employed as a machinist by Griffin Manufacturing Company,reported that he sustained injuries to his back in July 1998 and March 2000. He did notpursue workers' compensation benefits with respect to the 1998 incident, but the 2000incident resulted in an established workers' compensation claim set forth in a September2002 decision by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ), which wasnot appealed.[FN*]Eight years later, Griffin filed an application seeking a reopening and rehearing of thepreviously established 2000 claim on the basis that claimant allegedly violated Workers'Compensation Law § 114-a. According to Griffin, claimant concealed a prior 1979motor vehicle accident, impermissibly "linked a time barred accident" allegedly occurringin July 1999 to the 2000 incident, and gave inconsistent accounts regarding the 2000claim. Following a hearing, the WCLJ found no credible evidence of fraud supportingGriffin's contentions. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed anddenied the application to reopen, and this appeal by Griffin ensued.
We affirm. "The Board's determination as to whether a claimant has made a materialmisrepresentation in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a will not bedisturbed if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Hamza v Steinway & Sons, 88 AD3d 1033, 1033[2011] [citations omitted]). Here, the record evinces that claimant's medical file includedinformation pertaining to his 1979 motor vehicle accident, and Griffin acknowledgedthat the July 1999 accident date appearing on a few medical reports "was probably atypo" meant to refer to the already-disclosed July 1998 incident. Furthermore, Griffin'scontention that claimant gave inconsistent accounts of the 2000 injury did no more thancreate "a credibility issue for the Board, the sole arbiter of witness credibility" (Matter of Martinez v LeFrak CityMgt., 100 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citationomitted]). Inasmuch as there is substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision, wedecline to disturb it.
Griffin's remaining contentions, including its assertion that the Board abused itsdiscretion in granting a reopening or rehearing of the 2000 claim, have been examinedand found to be unpersuasive.
Spain, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote *: Thereafter, claimantfiled another claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging that he sustained anotherinjury in June 2006 while working for a subsequent employer. Although the Workers'Compensation Board decided that claimant sustained a new injury, this Court ultimatelyruled that this decision was not supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Poulton v MartecIndus., 75 AD3d 819 [2010]).