Matter of Hirschbeck v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                           State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: September 3, 2015                   519122
    ________________________________
    In the Matter of MARK
    HIRSCHBECK,
    Appellant,
    v
    OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
    BASEBALL, MAJOR LEAGUE                   MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    BASEBALL, et al.,
    Respondents.
    WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD,
    Respondent.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:   August 20, 2015
    Before:   Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ.
    __________
    Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP, Binghamton (Gary C. Tyler of
    counsel), for appellant.
    Ryan Roach & Ryan, LLP, Kingston (Sean J. Denvir of
    counsel), for Office of the Commissioner of Baseball Major League
    Baseball and another, respondents.
    Steven M. Licht, Special Funds Conservation Committee,
    Albany (Jill B. Singer of counsel), for Special Disability Fund,
    respondent.
    __________
    -2-                519122
    Garry, J.
    Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board,
    filed August 16, 2013, which ruled that the employer was entitled
    to offset its future compensation to claimant pursuant to
    Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (4).
    Claimant, a major league baseball umpire, sustained a work-
    related injury to his right hip in 2002 and was awarded workers'
    compensation benefits. Claimant underwent hip replacement
    surgery and, following complications and additional surgeries,
    was deemed permanently partially disabled. Claimant commenced a
    third-party action alleging medical malpractice and products
    liability claims related to his initial hip replacement device.
    After that action was settled in 2011 for $3.2 million, the
    workers' compensation carrier suspended payments of benefits,
    claiming that it had reserved its rights to a future offset from
    claimant's settlement proceeds as evidenced in a 2007 agreement.1
    A Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the carrier had
    clearly reserved its right to future offsets from the settlement.
    The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed and this appeal by
    claimant ensued.
    We affirm. An employer or carrier must "unambiguously and
    expressly" reserve its right to offset a claimant's future
    compensation benefits with the proceeds of any recovery or
    settlement against a third party (Matter of Brisson v County of
    Onondaga, 6 NY3d 273, 279 [2006]; accord Matter of Tamara v
    Airborne Express, Inc., 100 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2012]). "[W]hether
    an employer [or carrier] adequately preserved its right to a
    future offset is a factual issue for the Board," and its
    determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial
    evidence (Matter of Brisson v County of Onondaga, 6 NY3d at 279).
    Here, a 2007 agreement was entered into in connection with the
    carrier intervening in the third-party action seeking
    1
    Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8), the
    carrier was found to be entitled to reimbursement from the
    Special Disability Fund for benefits paid beyond the statutory
    retention period.
    -3-                  519122
    reimbursement of costs and the workers' compensation related lien
    asserted by the carrier. In that document, it was expressly
    stated that the employer and its carrier "shall continue to
    maintain their statutory right to assert a dollar for dollar
    credit up to the net recovery on future benefits" pursuant to
    Workers' Compensation Law § 29. We are unpersuaded by claimant's
    contention that alleged deficiencies in that document render the
    carrier's reservation of future offsets ambiguous. As the
    express language in the 2007 agreement notified claimant of the
    carrier's intent to seek credit against future awards of
    compensation benefits, we find that substantial evidence supports
    the Board's decision and it will not be disturbed (see Matter of
    Whitcomb v Xerox Corp., 246 AD2d 947, 948 [1998]).
    Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 519122

Judges: Garry, Lahtinen, McCarthy, Egan

Filed Date: 9/3/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024