Matter of Ireland v. Cattaraugus County Dept. of Nursing Homes-Olean Pines

2020 NY Slip Op 2514
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 2020
Docket528938
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 2514 (Matter of Ireland v. Cattaraugus County Dept. of Nursing Homes-Olean Pines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Ireland v. Cattaraugus County Dept. of Nursing Homes-Olean Pines, 2020 NY Slip Op 2514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Matter of Ireland v Cattaraugus County Dept. of Nursing Homes-Olean Pines (2020 NY Slip Op 02514)
Matter of Ireland v Cattaraugus County Dept. of Nursing Homes-Olean Pines
2020 NY Slip Op 02514
Decided on April 30, 2020
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: April 30, 2020

528938

[*1]In the Matter of the Claim of Valerie Ireland, Respondent,

v

Cattaraugus County Department of Nursing Homes-Olean Pines et al., Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.


Calendar Date: January 13, 2020
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

Hamberger & Weiss LLP, Buffalo (John D. Land of counsel), for appellants.

Lewis & Lewis, PC, Buffalo (Emily F. Janicz of counsel), for Valerie Ireland, respondent.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.



Lynch, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed October 4, 2018, which denied a request by the employer and its workers' compensation carrier to rehear or reopen claimant's workers' compensation claim.

Claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits in 2012 after suffering a work-related injury to her back. The claim was later amended to include an injury to claimant's neck. In December 2013, awards were continued at a temporary partial disability rate. In 2015, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) raised the issue of claimant's attachment to the labor market. In January 2016, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) determined that claimant was attached to the labor market "as evidenced by a diligent and persistent job search," and the case was continued to address permanency. Prior to a hearing on permanency, the parties stipulated that, among other things, claimant had sustained a 75% permanent partial disability and a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity. The parties also stipulated that claimant would produce a job search sheet every 60 days. The stipulation was approved by the WCLJ and incorporated into a March 17, 2016 decision.

In August 2018, the employer sought to reopen the claim to address claimant's voluntary removal from the labor market, citing no evidence of a job search since June 2017. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the request on the ground that, pursuant to the April 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), claimant was not required to demonstrate an ongoing attachment to the labor market. The employer appeals.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) was amended, effective April 10, 2017 (L 2017, ch 59, part NNN, subpart A,

§ 1), to provide, in relevant part, that, in certain cases of permanent partial disability, "[c]ompensation . . . shall be payable during the continuance of such permanent partial disability, without the necessity for the claimant who is entitled to benefits at the time of classification to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market." This Court has previously found that the 2017 amendment applies retroactively "to claimants who have involuntarily withdrawn from the labor market and are entitled to receive wage replacement benefits having been classified with a permanent partial disability" (Matter of O'Donnell v Erie County, 162 AD3d 1278, 1280-1281 [2018], revd on other grounds ___ NY3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 02095 [2020]). In addressing the issue of retroactive application, the Court of Appeals, in Matter of O'Donnell v Erie County (___ NY3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 02095 [2020]), pointed out that the parties agreed that the amendment applied retroactively to a claimant eligible for benefits when classified with a permanent partial disability, and commented, "[w]e agree [that] this interpretation is correct" (id. at *3). Here, claimant was classified as having a permanent partial disability in the WCLJ's March 2016 decision. At the time of classification, there had not been a finding that claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market, nor was there any finding of a voluntary withdrawal by the Board prior to the 2017 amendment (compare Matter of Santos v Brickens Constr. Inc., 175 AD3d 1742, 1743 [2019]; Matter of Pryer v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 175 AD3d 1663, 1665-1666 [2019]; Matter of Scott v Visiting Nurses Home Care, 172 AD3d 1868, 1871-1872 [2019], lv dismissed 34 NY3d 1011 [2019]). In light of the foregoing, we find that the 2017 amendment applies retroactively to the claim and obviates the need for claimant to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market (see Matter of O'Donnell v Erie County, 162 AD3d at 1280-1281). Therefore, the Board properly denied the employer's request for a rehearing or reopening of the claim.

Contrary to the employer's contention, the fact that the parties stipulated in 2016 to a requirement that claimant provide proof of a job search every 60 days does not compel a different result. "Parties to any claim before the [B]oard may stipulate to uncontested facts or proposed findings" (12 NYCRR 300.5 [b] [1]), and such a stipulation, if approved by a WCLJ and incorporated into his or her decision, is binding on the parties (see 12 NYCRR 300.5 [b] [1]; Matter of Lloyd v New Era Cap Co., 80 AD3d 1016, 1019 [2011]). Notably, "consistent with the Board's jurisdiction and control over awards of compensation in the state, such a stipulation is subject to further review by the Board and can even be disregarded" (Matter of Lloyd v New Era Cap Co., 80 AD3d at 1019 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Hosler v Smallman, 106 AD3d 1218, 1219 [2013]; Matter of Marino v K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines, 194 AD2d 818, 820 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 661 [1993]; see also Workers' Compensation Law § 123; 12 NYCRR 300.5 [b] [2]). In light of this continuing jurisdiction, the Board acted within its authority in denying the employer's request to rehear or reopen the claim based upon its finding that, pursuant to the 2017 amendment, claimant was not required to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market, notwithstanding the parties preamendment stipulation (see Matter of Gibson v Carrier Corp., 307 AD2d 616, 618 [2003]).

We also reject the employer's contention that a retroactive application of the 2017 amendment is in violation of the Contract Clause of the US Constitution. "The Contract Clause of the US Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws impairing the Obligation of Contracts" (American Economy Ins. Co. v State of New York, 30 NY3d 136, 149 [2017] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted], cert denied ___ US ___, 138 S Ct 2601 [2018]). "'The threshold inquiry is whether the state law has, in fact, operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship'" (id., quoting Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 US 400, 411 [1983]; see Schantz v O'Sullivan, 11 AD3d 22, 25 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 767 [2004]).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

General Motors Corp. v. Romein
503 U.S. 181 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Zamora v. New York Neurologic Associates
970 N.E.2d 823 (New York Court of Appeals, 2012)
Schantz v. O'Sullivan
11 A.D.3d 22 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Claim of Peck v. James Square Nursing Home
34 A.D.3d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Claim of Lloyd v. New Era Cap Co.
80 A.D.3d 1016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bobbitt v. Peter Charbonneau Construction
85 A.D.3d 1351 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Claim of Marino v. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines
194 A.D.2d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Gibson v. Carrier Corp.
307 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Robinson v. United States
138 S. Ct. 2601 (Supreme Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 2514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ireland-v-cattaraugus-county-dept-of-nursing-homes-olean-pines-nyappdiv-2020.