Opinion
08-17-2017
In the Matter of the Claim of Eugene EVERETT, Respondent, v. SODEXO, INC., et al., Appellants. Workers Compensation Board, Respondent.
Lois, LLC, New York City (Declan J. Gourley of counsel), for appellants. Martin, Harding & Mazzotti, LLP, Albany (Crystle A. Watts of counsel), for Eugene Everett, respondent. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Donya Fernandez of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Lois, LLC, New York City (Declan J. Gourley of counsel), for appellants.
Martin, Harding & Mazzotti, LLP, Albany (Crystle A. Watts of counsel), for Eugene Everett, respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Donya Fernandez of counsel), for Workers' Compensation Board, respondent.
Before: EGAN JR., J.P., LYNCH, DEVINE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.
EGAN JR., J.P.Appeal from a decision of a panel of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed April 13, 2016, which ruled, among other things, that claimant sustained a causally-related injury and awarded workers' compensation benefits.
In April 2014, claimant, a dishwasher, was injured when a large pot fell on his left foot. One of his toes later became infected, and the infection, which initially led to the amputation of the toe, ultimately resulted in the amputation of one half of claimant's left foot. Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, and the employer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the employer) opposed, asserting that claimant's injury was not work-related but, rather, was the result of his diabetes, and that claimant made misrepresentations in order to be awarded benefits in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a. Following hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found that claimant's injury was causally related to his employment and that claimant had not violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114–a. A panel of the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed in a 2 to 1 majority decision filed on April 13, 2016. Subsequently, in a decision filed February 27, 2017, the full Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination. The employer only appeals from the Board panel's April 2016 decision. Inasmuch as the right to appeal from the Board panel's decision terminated upon the superceding decision of the full Board, the employer's appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Empara v. New Rochelle Sch. Dist., 130 A.D.3d 1127, 1129 n., 12 N.Y.S.3d 391 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 7288984 [2015] ; Matter of Launer v. Euro Brokers, 115 A.D.3d 1130, 1130 n., 983 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 906, 2014 WL 2609556 [2014] ).
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
LYNCH, DEVINE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ., concur.