Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

Full title: In the Matter of the Claim of STEVEN DERR, Appellant, v. VIP STRUCTURES et…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 23, 2002

294 A.D.2d 793 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

741 N.Y.S.2d 925

Opinion

91063

Decided and Entered: May 23, 2002.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed March 20, 2001, which ruled that claimant is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits during the period of his incarceration after the conviction of a crime.

Bond and McDonald, Geneva (Kevin J. McDonald of counsel), for appellant.

Hamberger Weiss, Rochester (Ronald E. Weiss of counsel), for VIP Structures and another, respondents.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Carpinello, J.

Claimant, who was previously classified with a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of an assault charge in March 1999 and sentenced to four years in prison. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits during the period of his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. On this appeal, claimant contends that he is entitled to continuing benefits because he is totally disabled and, therefore, has no earning capacity regardless of whether he is incarcerated.

Despite having a work-related disability, a claimant is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits while incarcerated after conviction of a crime (see, Matter of Bilello v. Eckert Co., 43 A.D.2d 192, appeal dismissed 34 N.Y.2d 663; Matter of Packard v. Sperry Sons, 39 A.D.2d 622; see also, Matter of Tallini v. Martino Son, 58 N.Y.2d 392, 395). In our view, this principle is based on public policy and, therefore, we reject claimant's attempt to distinguish the cited cases on the theory that they involved partial disabilities while he has a total disability. Suspension of claimant's benefits during the period of his incarceration after conviction of a crime neither conflicts with the goals of the Workers' Compensation Law nor works a hardship that is unwarranted in light of claimant's criminal conduct (cf., Matter of Tallini v. Martino Son, supra, at 396).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.