Claim of Dusharm v. Green Island Contracting, LLC
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Claim of Bennett v. Putnam Northern Westchester BOCES (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Claim of Bennett v. Putnam Northern Westchester BOCES (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Dixon v. Plumbing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Dixon v. Plumbing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Claim of McCarthy v. Verizon Wireless (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Claim of Dudas v. Town of Lancaster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Matter of Napolitano v. City of Batavia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Johnson v. T.L. Cannon Management (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Lopadchak v. R.W. Express LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Claim of Rankin v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Claim of Rankin v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Claim of Conyers v. Van Rensselaer Manor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Claimant, a labor supervisor for a highway construction
We affirm. Workers’ Compensation Law § 18 requires claimants seeking benefits to provide their employers with written notice of a compensable injury “within thirty days after the accident causing such injury” (see Matter of Miner v Cayuga Correctional Facility, 14 AD3d 784, 785 [2005]). Claimant admittedly did not file timely written notice. Failure to provide such notice bars any claim, unless the Board excuses that failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident, or the employer was not prejudiced (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 18). The Board is not required to excuse a claimant’s failure to give timely written notice even if one of these grounds is proven; the matter rests within the Board’s discretion. Although claimant testified that he notified his supervisor within minutes after his accident, thus providing oral notice to his employer’s agent, “resolution of the sufficiency of a claimant’s oral notice is a matter within the exclusive province of the Board” (Matter of Pisarek v Utica Cutlery, 26 AD3d 619, 620 [2006]).
Here, the Board refused to excuse claimant’s lack of written notice. Claimant’s testimony indicated that his supervisor did not take him seriously and never filed an accident report. The Board considered the claim suspect based upon claimant’s delay in seeking medical treatment and filing his claim, his failure to initially mention the work injury to his medical providers, his previous 20-year history of back pain, his inconsistent statement to an independent medical examiner that he had never experienced difficulties with his back prior to the accident, and his failure to miss any time from work due to this accident for more than a year thereafter. These circumstances prejudiced the employer’s ability to investigate the claim (compare Matter of Ewool v Franklin Hosp. Med. Ctr., 49 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 711 [2008]; Matter of Flynn v Ace Hardware Corp., 38 AD3d 1143, 1144-1145 [2007]), which affected the Board’s determination to not excuse claimant’s untimely written notice despite the oral notice. As the Board’s determination constitutes an exercise of its discretion based upon substantial evidence, we see no basis to disturb its decision.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.