Matter of Moe v. America Ootoya Chelsea

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Workers’ Compensation Board decisions establishing an occupational disease claim for bilateral elbow injuries sustained by a line cook. The court held that the carrier’s notice of controversy was untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b), that no good cause excused the delay, and that the carrier was properly precluded from disputing causation. The court also upheld denial of an adjournment request and found substantial evidence supporting the claim.

Holdings

1. The Board properly determined that the carrier's notice of controversy was untimely and properly denied the carrier's request to deem it timely because the carrier failed to show good cause for the 87-day delay.
2. The carrier was properly precluded from disputing claimant's evidence on causation and from pleading that no employer-employee relationship existed, that no accident occurred, or that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.
3. The Board properly denied the carrier's request to adjourn the treating physician's deposition because a pending administrative appeal did not constitute an emergency under the Board's expedited-hearing regulations.
4. Substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant established a causal relationship between her bilateral elbow condition and a distinctive feature of her employment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Workers' Compensation Board properly found the carrier's notice of controversy untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) and refused to deem it timely for good cause.
2. Whether the Board properly barred the carrier from disputing specified elements of the claim, including whether claimant was an employee, whether an accidental injury occurred, and whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.
3. Whether the Workers' Compensation Law Judge properly denied the carrier's request to adjourn the deposition of claimant's treating physician while the carrier's administrative appeal was pending.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant established a causally related occupational disease involving bilateral elbow injuries.

Disposition

affirmed