Judges

Attorneys and Parties

Brief Summary

Background

Jennifer L. Price, an assistant manager at a retail store, sought workers' compensation benefits after tripping and falling at work in November 2023. After further proceedings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established a work-related cervical spine injury but found that claimant had not submitted prima facie medical evidence for a left knee injury. Claimant then sought Board review using form RB-89. Her initial form omitted the portion affirming when and how the application was filed with the Board and left out the date of service on the other parties. After the employer and workers' compensation carrier challenged those omissions, claimant submitted a supplemental RB-89 and a paralegal affirmation stating that the omissions were inadvertent and that the application had in fact been timely filed and served.

Lower Court Decision

The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that the supplemental RB-89 was untimely and denied review based on claimant's failure to properly complete the original form. Relying on 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) [rule requiring a Board review application to be filed within 30 days with proof of service and requiring the RB-89 affirmation to state when and how the application was filed and served], the Board reasoned that claimant had not properly filed the application because she failed to specify the date or method of filing with the Board and failed to state the date of service. The Board later denied claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division held that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on technical omissions in the RB-89. The Court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a (1) [mistakes, omissions, defects, or irregularities in form RB-89 are not grounds for denial of an application for administrative review] and Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a (3) [the Board must notify the applicant in writing of such a problem and give 20 days to correct it, or disregard it if substantial rights are not affected] controlled. Although the Board may deny applications for actual filing or service failures, the record showed that claimant had timely filed and served the application and merely failed to note that information on the original form. Because the Board did not provide the required written notice and cure opportunity, and because the carrier did not dispute timely filing/service or claim prejudice, the denial could not stand. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings, and the appeal from the denial of reconsideration was dismissed as academic.

Legal Significance

This decision reinforces that Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a limits the Board's ability to reject administrative review applications for technical RB-89 errors. The Board's regulations under 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) cannot be applied in a way that contravenes the statute's purpose of preventing dismissal of appeals over minor cover-sheet mistakes when filing and service were actually timely and proper.