Matter of Pressimone v. New York City Housing Authority (5/1/25)
- This case highlights the importance of issuing subpoenas and, when appropriate, requests for extensions in good faith for the deposition testimony of physicians. While the claimant’s physician’s reports and deposition testimony finding a 45% SLU were initially precluded, the Third Department found this to be in error, as the employer knew at the time of scheduling that the physician was unavailable for the initial two subpoenas and confirmed a date beyond the deadline imposed by the Board decision without filing any requests for extensions. The prior ruling, which found the claimant was entitled to a 20% SLU for his left arm based on the IME report and testimony, was therefore rescinded.
Matter of Stabile v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc. (5/1/25)
- This case highlights the importance of having credible medical consultants. The Board concluded that although the presumption contained in Workers' Compensation Law § 21(1) applied to the unexplained cardiac arrest, the Carrier successfully rebutted the presumption through testimony from its consultant, who opined that the claimant's cardiac arrest was not related to his employment. The consultant relied on a thorough review of the claimant’s medical history and clinical evidence of the incident to overcome the presumption and maintain the prior disallowance.
Matter of Epstein v. Waldbaums (5/1/25)
- While the mere existence of a monthly shortfall—standing alone—is insufficient to constitute extreme financial hardship in a claim involving the submission of a C-35 for reclassification of benefits, other factors such as the claimant’s age at the time of the hearing, educational background, and overall state of health are considered and can lead to a finding of dire financial circumstances warranting reclassification. Accordingly, it is critical to evaluate claims holistically and consider all known factors of a claimant in assessing potential future exposure.
Matter of Coyle v. W & W Steel Erectors LLC (5/8/25)
- This case highlights how the WCLJ’s decision becoming final after the Carrier forgoes seeking administrative review can prejudice the Carrier if it later seeks to reopen a matter to suspend payments based on changes in case law.
- Here, because the Carrier did not seek administrative review of a decision to continue payment of the decedent’s lost wage benefits to his son, the WCLJ’s decision became final. The Board’s later denial of the Carrier’s request for review of the son’s entitlement was not found to be an abuse of discretion, even after subsequent developments in relevant case law.
Matter of Juncal v. Maspeth Remodeling Co. (5/29/25)
- The Board properly held that 12 NYCRR 300.23(b)(2) does not mandate that a hearing must be held within 20 days, although the Board strives to do so, nor that a claimant's benefits must be reduced or suspended after 20 days where a timely hearing is not held. While the Board acknowledged the rule’s prejudice to the Carrier, it emphasized that "the Board should make every effort to provide priority for the scheduling of hearings when the carrier seeks to reduce or suspend benefits pursuant to 12 NYCRR 300.23(b)(2)" (*Employer: Matter of Transportation-Region 10, 2023 WL 7109310 at *4, 2023 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 6606 at 5) and found that the delay did not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion—highlighting the importance of diligently monitoring claims for further Board action.
Matter of Fonseca v. Platinum Carpentry Inc. (5/29/25)
- This case highlights the Board’s recognition of PEO agreements and the extension of WC insurance policy rules of responsibility and liability for leased employees. Here, the Board found the claimant was not a leased/worksite employee because the agreement between the PEO and client expressly obligated the client to provide the PEO with all required hiring paperwork at least 48 hours before the start of a prospective employee—and the client failed to do so. The decision further notes that while the claimant’s name not being included on a list of covered employees would be insufficient on its own, additional evidence—such as the coverage requirements detailed in the PEO agreement—could support a finding that the claimant was not a leased employee if those requirements were not met.
.png)
