NY Court Affirms Abandonment of Labor Market Finding in Spite of Medical Opinion as to Disability
In spite of the fact that a New York employee sustained an admitted work-related injury–she was hit by falling scaffolding–and her physician offered an unrebutted medical opinion that she was temporarily totally disabled due to her injuries, the state Board could still deny benefits to her when it found that, prior to the date of the medical opinion, the employee had abandoned the labor market, held a state appellate court recently [Matter of Castro v. Baybrent Constr. Corp., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5679 (Oct. 8, 2020)]. The appellate court stressed that whether a claimant has voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market is a factual determination, and the Board's decision in that regard will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence.
Background
Claimant, a tile finisher and a member of a union, established a claim for work-related injuries to her right elbow and right knee, stemming from a December 4, 2018 accident wherein she was hit with falling scaffolding. Claimant returned to work two days later, without restrictions, and continued to work until she was laid off from her job on December 14, 2018. Thereafter, on December 21, 2018, claimant's physician opined, based upon his examination of claimant and the results of an MRI, that claimant sustained a total temporary impairment due to her injuries.
The WCLJ found that claimant's wage loss was due to her disability, but the Board disagreed. It found her loss of earnings was due to reasons unrelated to her disability and that she had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. Claimant appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The court noted that the record established that claimant returned to work following her injury without restrictions. Both claimant and a supervisor testified that claimant was laid off on December 14, 2018 and that claimant was informed that the layoff was due to a lack of work, as the job for which she was hired had been completed. Claimant acknowledged that she thereafter withheld her name from the union's "Out of Work List" and made no attempts to otherwise find employment outside her union restrictions. She also admitted that she had applied for, and received, unemployment insurance benefits, indicating that she was able and ready to return to work.
The field representative for her union also testified that work had been available for union members since December 15, 2018. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that claimant's loss of earnings was due to her voluntary withdrawal from the labor market following her layoff on December 14, 2018 and not as a result of her work-related disability. The court stressed that the fact that claimant's physician found, subsequent to claimant's withdrawal from the labor market, that she was temporarily totally disabled due to her work-related injuries did not compel a different result.