Court affirms Board’s decision, rejects employer’s arguments it was denied due process of law by refusal to allow certain evidence and improper determination that implied agreement existed for more severe injury than what was agreed to by the parties.

Ms. Gallagher injured her low back in a work accident on June 13, 2018. The employer acknowledged the accident and paid total disability benefits, medical expenses and a 7% permanent impairment to the lumbar spine. Agreements and final receipts signed by the parties reflected “lumbar strain” as the injury. On October 1, 2020, a lumbar fusion surgery was recommended and denied by the employer as not reasonable, necessary or causally related to the work accident. The issue went to a hearing, and the Industrial Accident Board concluded that the surgery was compensable.

On appeal, the employer argued that the Board did not allow it to present relevant evidence at the hearing, a violation of its due process rights. Specifically, the Board sustained an objection that precluded questioning regarding prior workers’ compensation claims reported by Ms. Gallagher and instructed the employer’s counsel to “move on.” The court did not find a due process violation. It emphasized the Board’s relaxed application of the Rules of Evidence and determined that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the objection. The majority of the evidence in question was admitted anyway through further questioning of the claimant and medical expert testimony, and the Board considered the evidence in question in arriving at its conclusions in the case. The court found that the employer fully developed the record and was provided a full and fair opportunity to be heard. 

The employer also argued that the Board misconstrued and misused evidence of prior written agreements and erroneously determined there was an accepted “lumbar radiculopathy” diagnosis to conclude that the proposed lumbar fusion surgery was compensable. The court held that the Board properly examined the relevant agreements and receipts, which were one part of the competent evidence used to arrive at the decision on surgery. There was no indication that the Board found an implied agreement for lumbar radiculopathy. However, it was appropriate for the Board to consider that there was an acknowledged permanent impairment to inform its decision on the compensability of the lumbar spine surgery. 
 

What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.