| Matter of Rankin v Half Hollow Hills Cent. Sch. Dist. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02636 [105 AD3d 1242] |
| April 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Delia Rankin, Respondent, vHalf Hollow Hills Central School District et al., Appellant. Workers' CompensationBoard, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Iris A. Steel of counsel),for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filedNovember 7, 2011, which ruled that claimant was excused from providing timely writtennotice of her accident pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 18.
Claimant, a school bus driver, alleged that she sustained a work-related injury inNovember 2007 and applied for workers' compensation benefits in March 2008. Theself-insured employer and its third-party administrator (hereinafter collectively referredto as the employer) controverted the claim and argued, among other things, that claimanthad not provided written notice of the accident within 30 days after its occurrence(see Workers' Compensation Law § 18). The Workers' CompensationBoard ultimately found that claimant had provided adequate oral notice and excused herfailure to comply with the statute, prompting the employer's appeal.
We affirm. While claimant did not give timely written notice of her injury, her failureto do so may be excused "on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer orits agent had knowledge of the accident, or the employer was not prejudiced" (Matter of Dusharm v Green [*2]Is. Contr., LLC, 68 AD3d 1402, 1403 [2009]; accord Matter of McCarthy vVerizon Wireless, 83 AD3d 1352, 1353 [2011]; see Workers'Compensation Law § 18). Claimant testified that she verbally informed the busdispatcher of the accident shortly after it occurred, and the employer's employee benefitssupervisor confirmed that the dispatcher would be an appropriate individual to whom toreport an accident if claimant's supervisor was unavailable. Claimant also testified thatshe orally notified her supervisor of the accident—perhaps the followingday—and the Board credited her testimony on this point. Inasmuch as "thesufficiency of a claimant's oral notice is a matter within the exclusive province of theBoard," substantial evidence supports its factual determination that claimant affordedadequate notice of her injuries to the employer (Matter of Pena v Alize II Corp., 77 AD3d 1225, 1226[2010]; see Matter of Walker vGreene Cent. School Dist., 6 AD3d 965, 966 [2004]).
The employer's remaining contentions, to the extent they are not rendered academicby the foregoing, have been considered and found to lack merit.
Peters, P.J., Rose and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.