Skip to Content

Workers' Compensation Board

Language Assistance: (877) 632-4996 | Language Access Policy


Case # G0735662
Date of Accident: 08/06/2013
District Office: Buffalo
Employer: Wegmans
Carrier: Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
Carrier ID No.: W665509
Carrier Case No.: WC2013108111
Date of Filing of Decision: 10/04/2017
Claimant's Attorney: Losi & Gangi
Panel: Clarissa M. Rodriguez


The Full Board, at its meeting on September 19, 2017, considered the above captioned case for Mandatory Full Board Review of the Board Panel Memorandum of Decision filed November 23, 2016.


The issue presented for Mandatory Full Board Review is whether the claimant's application for Mandatory Full Board Review complied with the requirements of Board Rule 300.13.

The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that the claimant did not violate Workers' Compensation Law (WCL) § 114-a.

The Board Panel majority reversed the WCLJ decision, found that claimant violated WCL § 114-a, and permanently disqualified her from receiving future indemnity benefits.

The claimant filed an application for Mandatory Full Board Review on December 22, 2016, arguing that "the record is wholly devoid of any intent to misrepresent on behalf of the claimant."

The self-insured employer (SIE) filed a rebuttal on January 23, 2017, in which it initially asks the Full Board to reject the claimant's application pursuant to 12 NYCRR 300.13 because the claimant submitted multiple applications for Mandatory Full Board Review, both of which exceeded eight pages in length, and the claimant attached documents that were already present in the Board's electronic case folder (see 12 NYCRR 300.13[b][1][i],[ii]). On the merits, the SIE contends that the majority correctly found that the claimant had violated WCL § 114-a.

Upon review, the Full Board votes to adopt the following findings and conclusions.


This case is established for right wrist and right carpal tunnel syndrome injuries, amended to include complex regional pain syndrome of right upper extremity, arising from a work-related accident on August 6, 2013. The claimant's average weekly wage was set at $673.70.

In a decision filed March 11, 2016, the WCLJ found that the SIE did not prove that claimant knowingly made a false representation as to a material fact in order to obtain compensation, and therefore, claimant did not violate WCL 114-a. The SIE requested administrative review of the WCLJ decision.


Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 300.13, applications for Full Board Review that are prepared by anyone other than a pro se claimant must be submitted to the Board in a format prescribed by the Chair. As relevant here, the legal brief attached to the application must not exceed eight pages in length, "unless the appellant specifies, in writing, why the legal argument could not have been made within eight pages. In no event shall a brief longer than 15 pages be considered" (12 NYCRR 300.13[b][1][i]). Further, appellants are prohibited from attaching to the application any "documents that are present in the [B]oard's electronic case folder at the time the administrative review is submitted" (id. 300.13[b][1][ii]). An application for Full Board Review may be denied when the appellant does not comply with the aforementioned prescribed formatting requirements (see id. 300.13[b][4] [emphasis added]).

Here, the SIE correctly notes that the 10-page legal memoranda attached to the claimant's application for Mandatory Full Board Review exceeds the prescribed page length set forth in 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(1)(i) and does not contain any explanation as to why the legal argument could not be completed in eight pages. Moreover, in violation of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(1)(ii), one of the claimant's applications contains a copy of a medical report that had previously been filed with the Board on September 28, 2015 (see RB-89.2, ECF Doc ID # 276631228).

Therefore, the Full Board declines to consider claimant's application for Mandatory Full Board Review.


ACCORDINGLY, the claimant's application for Mandatory Full Board Review filed December 22, 2016, is DENIED. The decision of the Board Panel majority filed November 23, 2016, remains in effect. No further action is planned by the Board at this time.