Matter of Zaremski v. New Visions ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: February 18, 2016                   520654
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of the Claim of
    JAMES ZAREMSKI,
    Appellant,
    v
    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    NEW VISIONS et al.,
    Respondents.
    WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
    Respondent.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   January 13, 2016
    Before:   Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.
    __________
    Buckley, Mendleson, Criscione & Quinn, PC, Albany (Rebeccah
    W. Kane of counsel), for appellant.
    Sullivan Keenan Oliver & Violando, LLP, Albany (Ashley M.
    Hart of counsel), for Travelers Insurance, respondent.
    __________
    Peters, P.J.
    Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board,
    filed May 12, 2014, which ruled that claimant was not entitled to
    an award of reduced earnings subsequent to January 22, 2013.
    In January 2012, claimant suffered an injury to his lower
    back during the course of his employment as a general maintenance
    repairperson for the employer and did not return to that
    employment. At the time of his injury, claimant was also solely
    operating a self-owned appliance repair business and, in June
    2012, he resumed operating that business on a part-time basis but
    -2-                520654
    with physical restrictions. His claim for workers' compensation
    benefits was established in December 2012, and, following a
    hearing on the issue of reduced earning benefits, a Workers'
    Compensation Law Judge found that claimant was entitled to
    tentative reduced earnings of $300 per week based upon the
    difference between his average weekly wage from his employment as
    a general maintenance repairperson and his weekly earnings
    subsequent to his return to work at his self-employment business.
    Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board modified that
    decision and ruled that claimant had no compensable claim for
    reduced earnings after January 22, 2013. Claimant appeals, and
    we reverse.
    A decision of the Board will be deemed arbitrary "if it
    departs from prior Board precedent and fails to explain the
    reasons for its departure" (Matter of Dicob v AMF Bowling, Inc.,
    77 AD3d 1034, 1036 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted]; see Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery Serv.
    [Roberts], 66 NY2d 516, 520 [1985]; Matter of Winters v Advance
    Auto Parts, 119 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2014]). The Board has
    previously determined that, although wages from a noncovered
    concurrent employment cannot be included in the calculation of a
    claimant's average weekly wage pursuant to Workers' Compensation
    Law § 14 (6), such wages must be taken into account when
    computing a claimant's reduced earnings under Workers'
    Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) (see Employer: NYC Bd. of Educ., 
    2005 WL 3087684
    , *2, 2005 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 9711, *4 [WCB No. 0031
    7094, Nov. 4, 2005]; Employer: Genesee Region Home Care, 
    2004 WL 2107404
    , *2, 2004 NY Wrk Comp LEXIS 13982, *4-5 [WCB No. 7011
    3900, Sept. 17, 2004]). Here, contrary to such precedent, the
    Board concluded that because claimant's self-employment did not
    qualify as concurrent employment to increase his average weekly
    wage,1 the earnings from his self-employment could not be
    considered in determining claimant's reduced earnings. Inasmuch
    as the Board failed to explain its departure from prior Board
    1
    Claimant conceded, both before the Board and on this
    appeal, that his self-employment did not constitute "covered"
    concurrent employment within the meaning of Workers' Compensation
    Law § 14 (6). Accordingly, we do not address that issue.
    -3-                  520654
    precedent, the decision must be reversed and the matter remitted
    for further proceedings (see Matter of Charles A. Field Delivery
    Serv. [Roberts], 66 NY2d at 520; Matter of Hills v New York City
    Bd. of Educ., 133 AD3d 1079, 1081 [2015]; Matter of Ramadhan v
    Morgans Hotel Group Mgt., LLC, 91 AD3d 1141, 1141-1142 [2012]).
    In light of our determination, we need not address the
    parties' remaining arguments.
    Garry, Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the decision is reversed, with costs, and
    matter remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further
    proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 520654

Judges: Peters, Garry, Egan, Rose, Clark

Filed Date: 2/18/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024