Majority
Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 17, 2014, which ruled, among other things, that the State Insurance Fund was not entitled to the payment of interest from the Special Fund for Reopened Cases on certain payments for claimant’s medical expenses pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (i).
Claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1981 and established a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The State Insurance Fund (hereinafter SIF), the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, made the last payment of compensation in 1989 and the case was closed. In 2001, SIF sought to transfer liability for the claim to the Special Fund for Reopened
In December 2010, SIF requested that, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (f), the Special Fund pay SIF interest in the amount of $315,651.14 on the reimbursed medical expenses. Following hearings, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that, among other things, SIF was entitled to interest pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (f), but limited the amount to interest on a $4,069.32 award made in 2005 for medical and transportation expenses. Upon appeal, the Board disagreed and held that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (f) does not apply to the transfer of claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. Therefore, the Board determined that SIF is not entitled to the interest provided for in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (f), including the interest on the 2005 award for $4,069.32, and the Board retroactively modified prior decisions on this claim to remove all references to the statute. The employer and SIF now appeal.
We affirm. The issue presented to this Court is whether Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (f) applies to medical expenses paid by an employer or its workers’ compensation carrier during a time that the Special Fund is ultimately determined to be liable for the claim, but prior to the transfer of liability to the Special Fund by the Board pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. “Inasmuch as the issue before us is one of statutory interpretation for the courts, the Board’s decision is not entitled to deference” (Matter of Krausa v Totales Debevoise Corp., 84 AD3d 1545 , 1546 [2011] [citation omitted]; see Matter of LaCroix v Syracuse Exec. Air Serv., Inc., 8 NY3d 348 , 352-353 [2007]). Nevertheless, we agree with the Board’s interpretation that SIF is not entitled to interest pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (f).
Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (1) (f) states: “Whenever compensation is withheld solely because a controversy exists on the question of liability as between insurance carriers, surety companies, the special disability fund, the [Special Fund], or an employer, the [B]oard may direct that any carrier, surety company, the special disability fund, [or] the [Special Fund] shall immediately pay compensation and bills for medical care . . . pending determination of such issue. Any such
We have examined and are unpersuaded by the remaining argument advanced by the employer and SIF.
Lahtinen, J.R, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Cases cited
- Claim of Krausa v. Totales Debevoise Corp. 84 AD3d 1545 at 1546 p. 1056
- LaCroix v. Syracuse Executive Air Service, Inc. 8 NY3d 348 at 352-353 p. 1056
- Claim of Martin v. New York Telephone 46 AD3d 1136 at 1137 p. 1057
- Claim of Thurston v. Consolidated Edison Co. 115 AD3d 1143 at 1144 p. 1057
- Claim of Khomitch v. Crotched Mountain Community 120 AD3d 1459 at 1461 p. 1057