LOIS Associate Natalia Verde secured a favorable disallowance in a New York Workers’ Compensation claim. The Claimant, a home health aide, alleged significant injuries after falling walking down the stairs and falling; however, the Claimant initially reported to the Employer that she had clocked out of work, left her patient’s home, and fell. Medical depositions were directed, and a trial was set. At the trial, the Claimant stated that she fell down the stairs that were about one foot away from the door. On cross-examination, the Claimant testified that her shift ended at 2:00 p.m. and that she was injured at 2:30 p.m. When questioned whether there were any witnesses, the Claimant testified that a neighbor saw her fall. When questioned on prior injuries, the Claimant conceded previous injuries to overlapping sites. Verde uploaded a Google Maps photo of the alleged accident location to show that the Claimant’s testimony was not supported by objective, photographic evidence.
One employer-witness testified to not receiving notice on November 1, 2024, despite the Employee Claim Form C-3 affirming that notice was provided to that employer-witness on the alleged date of accident. The second employer-witness testified as to the call-ins received as the on-call coordinator. The first call-in indicated that the Claimant was sick and would not make her shift the following day. The second call-in (the next day) indicated that the Claimant was reporting a fall a few days prior.
The Law Judge continued the claim for the Claimant to have the opportunity to review the photographic evidence. Verde submitted a summation brief arguing that the Claimant did not meet the burden as to prove that there was an accident and that there were numerous inconsistencies in the Claimant’s testimony with respect to when notice was provided, witnesses, timeline of events, mechanism of injury, and the Claimant’s initial denial of prior injuries. Furthermore, Verde argued that if there was sufficient evidence of an accident, the Claimant did not meet the burden of proof to prove that there was medical causal relationship.
At the following hearing, the Claimant confirmed that the photographic evidence submitted was the location where she allegedly fell. The Law Judge agreed with Verde that the photographic evidence is contradictory to the Claimant’s testimony as to mechanism of injury. The Law Judge highlighted that on several occasions, the Claimant testified that she fell down the steps that were one foot from the front door and that the Claimant testified that as soon as she opened the door to leave the patient’s home, she immediately fell down the stairs. The Law Judge noted that the photographic evidence does not corroborate the Claimant’s testimony. The Law Judge disallowed the claim in its entirety.
