Turning to the merits, a review of the record reveals substantial evidence in support of the Board's determination that claimant made intentional misrepresentations, both to his attending physicians and while testifying herein, in an apparent attempt to downplay the significance of prior accidents and his preexisting medical condition. Additionally, we discern no error in the Board's review and consideration of claimant's past compensation cases in rendering its decision here (see Workers' Compensation Law § 123). In any event, "t lies within the Board's discretion to entertain arguments not raised before the Workers' Compensation Law Judge" (Matter of Fina v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Contrary to his contention, the issue as to whether claimant knowingly misrepresented material facts was raised during the May 2002 hearing. Initially, we reject claimant's allegation that his due process rights were violated. The Workers' Compensation Board, however, ultimately determined that claimant had made material misrepresentations relative to his medical history and, as such, disqualified him from receiving wage replacement benefits. Following several hearings, his case was established and he began receiving workers' compensation benefits. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed September 17, 2004, which ruled that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and disqualified him from receiving wage replacement benefits.Ĭlaimant, the manager of an automotive shop, sustained injuries to his head, neck and back in 2001. In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Dishaw, Appellant, v Midas Service Experts et al., Respondents. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.Īs corrected through Wednesday, May 17, 2006
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |