Appellate Division orders petitioner to pay costs and fees after his unsuccessful attempt to re-litigate his original claim.

On January 29, 2008, the petitioner was working as a bus driver when his bus was involved in an accident. He filed a claim petition, which was dismissed with prejudice on October 4, 2020, for failure to sustain his burden of proof. Five years after, the petitioner filed an application to reopen or modify the prior order. In July 2016, the workers’ compensation court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss as untimely. In August 2018, the petitioner filed an application in the Appellate Division to re-open his prior claim petition. The Appellate Division, treating it as an appeal from the July 2016 order, dismissed it as untimely.

Soon thereafter, the petitioner filed another application to the court, alleging the judge who dismissed his claim in 2010 was biased and that his recent success in obtaining Social Security Disability benefits meant he is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Again, the respondent moved to dismiss and asked the court for attorneys costs for responding to pleadings. In October 2020, the court granted the respondent’s motion, noting the petitioner was attempting to re-litigate his original claim, that there was no evidence of bias, and ordered him to pay costs and fees.

The petitioner appealed, arguing he never received a hearing on his discrimination motion and that the court should have adopted the “Third Circuit Court of Appeals Social Security Judgment.” The Appellate Division concluded his arguments were without sufficient merit and only added that he was not entitled to “another bite of the apple” after unsuccessfully litigating the issue of workers’ compensation benefits; that all the judges provided the petitioner with opportunities to present his arguments; and that the Social Security Administration had different standards than the Workers’ Compensation Court.
 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}