LOIS Senior Associate Dan Gillis and Paralegal Jacklin Solomon received a Board Panel Decision affirming the disallowance of multiple injury sites, as well as a severe WCL Section 114-a violation inclusive of a permanent disqualification from all future indemnity payments in a New York Workers’ Compensation case. At an initial hearing, the Claimant, a construction carpenter, testified that he did not have any prior accidents where he sustained similar injuries to those that he was claiming due to this accident. He alleged that while holding a 250-pound metal form, he struck a metal pole that led to multiple injuries, and the metal form landed on his knees and left foot. However, after the Claimant’s testimony, one of the Claimant’s treating physicians confirmed that he had only treated the Claimant for an unrelated motor vehicle accident that occurred a few months before this work accident. With the assistance of the Employer, Paralegal Jacklin Solomon was able to secure the cooperation of witnesses that refuted claims made by the claimant about the accident date. Those witnesses, during direct testimony by Attorney Gillis, confirmed that the metal form in question only weighed 30-40 pounds, that the room where the Claimant was working did not have any metal support beams, and that the Claimant only reported the metal form struck his left foot with no other injuries sustained.
Following the completion of the testimony over multiple hearings, Attorney Gillis argued the additional sites should be disallowed, since the Claimant’s testimony was incredible and was contradicted by the employer-witnesses. He also argued the Claimant should be found to have violated WCL Section 114-a by misrepresenting the circumstances of the accident during his testimony and to the physicians of record, notwithstanding the Claimant’s prior denial of any prior related injuries at the initial hearing which was refuted by the Claimant’s own doctor. The Law Judge agreed with those arguments, citing the Claimant’s failure to disclose a prior accident with similar injuries discussed by one of his doctors, and imposed a lifetime ban of all indemnity benefits, along with disallowing the disputed sites alleged. On appeal, the Board Panel agreed with the Law Judge’s decision and affirmed the disallowance of the additional injury sites. The Board Panel also cited the arguments raised by Attorney Gillis that the Claimant provided multiple inconsistent and incredible accident histories to his physicians, including during his hearing testimony.
