The Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that claimant had misrepresented a material fact and, by way of sanction, rescinded the benefits that claimant had received during the two-month period of time in question, from Septemto November 19, 2001. Seybold further testified that he had not offered any advice regarding claimant's condition prior to that date. Seybold, however, testified that the first time he treated claimant was January 31, 2000. At the hearing, claimant indicated that he had been hunting in November 1999, but explained that he had done so with approval from Eric Seybold, his treating doctor. A hearing was thereafter conducted for the purpose of determining whether claimant had perpetrated a fraud relative to the degree of his disability. In November 1999, at a time when claimant was receiving compensation benefits pursuant to the assertion that he was totally disabled and unable to engage in even light duty work, the extent of his disability was called into question as a result of, inter alia, investigative surveillance by personnel who observed him engaging in certain hunting activities. December 15, 2005.Īppeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 11, 2004, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and disqualified him from receiving wage replacement benefits.Ĭlaimant sustained three separate compensable back injuries while working at varying times for different employers. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department. 24 A.D.3d 986 805 N.Y.S.2d 196 2005 NY Slip Op 09598 In the Matter of the Claim of CHARLES A.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |