Minichino v. Amazon.com Dedc LLC

204 A.D.3d 1289

167 N.Y.S.3d 594

In the Matter of the Claim of Alexandra MINICHINO, Claimant,

v.AMAZON.COM DEDC LLC et al., Appellants.

Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

533683

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: March 23, 2022

Decided and Entered: April 21, 2022

Cipriani & Werner, PC, Iselin, New Jersey (Marc Neuman of counsel), for appellants.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Nina M. Sas of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 28, 2020, which ruled, among other things, that claimant sustained a causally-related injury to her cervical spine.

Claimant worked as a picker at the employer's fulfillment center, a task that required her to – in a single motion – squat, pull a box from her station, lift the box into a bin and push the bin down a chute. While working in that capacity on December 20, 2018, claimant lost feeling in, among other locations, her right arm and shoulder and sought treatment at the employer's onsite medical facility. Claimant subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, contending that she had sustained an occupational/repetitive stress injury brought on by her years of pulling, pushing and carrying items for the employer. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier) ultimately controverted the claim. Following a hearing, independent medical examinations and the depositions of various treatment providers, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) disallowed the claim, citing inconsistencies in the record as to the manner in which claimant's injuries allegedly occurred – specifically, whether claimant's injuries were attributable to an occupational disease or a specific accident. Upon administrative review, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified the WCLJ's decision and ruled, among other things, that claimant sustained an accidental and causally-related injury to her cervical spine. This appeal by the carrier ensued.

To the extent that the carrier takes issue with the actual theory upon which the underlying claim is based, there is no dispute that claimant gave timely notice of her injury and, as the Board correctly observed, it may alter the theory upon which a claimant is deemed eligible for workers’ compensation benefits, "including changing the theory of the claim from occupational disease to accidental injury" ( Matter of Tames v. New York Med. Coll., 27 A.D.3d 917, 918, 811 N.Y.S.2d 192 [2006] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Leventer v. Yeshiva of Flatbush, 257 A.D.2d 903, 904–905, 684 N.Y.S.2d 658 [1999] ; see also Matter of Connolly v. Covanta Energy Corp., 172 A.D.3d 1839, 1840, 100 N.Y.S.3d 447 [2019] ). The carrier similarly argues – and the WCLJ found – that the inconsistencies in the record regarding the manner in which claimant's injuries occurred undermined her claim of an acute event. The Board, however, as the sole arbiter of witness credibility (see Matter of McAndrews v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 171 A.D.3d 1426, 1428, 97 N.Y.S.3d 363 [2019] ; Matter of Elias–Gomez v. Balsam View Dairy Farm, 162 A.D.3d 1356, 1358, 78 N.Y.S.3d 515 [2018] ), was not bound by the WCLJ's determinations (see Matter of Restrepo v. Plaza Motors of Brooklyn Inc., 181 A.D.3d 1108, 1110, 121 N.Y.S.3d 420 [2020] ; Matter of Aldea v. Damari Installations Corp., 172 A.D.3d 1852, 1854, 100 N.Y.S.3d 443 [2019] ) and was free to both accept claimant's explanation for such inconsistencies and consider the merits of her claim for an accidental injury.

As to the substance of the underlying claim, "[w]hether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Elias–Gomez v. Balsam View Dairy Farm, 162 A.D.3d at 1357, 78 N.Y.S.3d 515 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Gaspard v. Queens Party Hall Inc., 189 A.D.3d 1880, 1880, 138 N.Y.S.3d 224 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 912, 2021 WL 1742207 [2021] ). In this regard, the claimant bears the burden of establishing that the subject injury arose out of and in the course of his or her employment (see Matter of Gaspard v. Queens Party Hall Inc., 189 A.D.3d at 1880, 138 N.Y.S.3d 224 ; Matter of De La Cruz v. Aufiero Painting Indus. Inc., 185 A.D.3d 1330, 1330, 128 N.Y.S.3d 328 [2020] ) and, further, must demonstrate, "by competent medical evidence, the existence of a causal connection between his or her injury and his or her employment" ( Matter of Rossi v. Albert Pearlman Inc., 188 A.D.3d 1362, 1363, 134 N.Y.S.3d 579 [2020] ; see Matter of Richman v. New York State Workers’ Compensation Bd., 199 A.D.3d 1216, 1217, 158 N.Y.S.3d 334 [2021] ). Such proof, in turn, "must signify a probability as to the underlying cause of the claimant's injury which is supported by a rational...