Matter of Zeltman v. Infinigy Eng'g, PLLC

Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 07117Docket: 534627

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 14, 2022; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Edward Zeltman, a construction manager, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits related to injuries sustained on March 15, 2019. Zeltman alleged neck and lower back injuries from lifting heavy equipment at the CEO's home, reporting low back pain on the day of the incident. He later claimed he also suffered a left shoulder injury from slipping on ice, which he did not initially include in his claim. Zeltman's shoulder injury was not witnessed, nor reported to supervisors, and he continued to work after the alleged fall. Testimony from the CEO and Zeltman's manager indicated that there were no signs of injury or complaints from Zeltman at that time. Additionally, Zeltman had recently faced performance issues and was advised of a job reassignment to North Carolina, which he opposed. Treatment records showed him attempting to obtain a note for a two-month work absence due to his claimed injuries. He returned to work on March 18, 2019, reporting his back injury but not mentioning the shoulder injury or fall. He was terminated the following day for refusing to relocate. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately ruled that Zeltman did not sustain injuries causally related to his employment.

Claimant testified that in February 2020, he experienced a back seizure while exiting a car, leading to claimed knee injuries. Several orthopedists supported a causal link between his back, neck, shoulder, and knee injuries, though their opinions were later deemed unreliable due to incomplete or inaccurate medical histories provided by the claimant. An independent medical examiner acknowledged a causal relationship but noted MRI findings of pre-existing degenerative changes in the cervical and lumbar spine unrelated to the incidents in question. 

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, labeling the claimant as 'an unreliable narrator' and citing factors affecting his credibility, including a delay in reporting the alleged incident and inconsistencies in his medical histories. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld the WCLJ's findings, concluding that the claimant failed to provide credible evidence of causally-related injuries. The law states that injuries must arise out of and in the course of employment, placing the burden of proof on the claimant to establish a causal link through competent medical evidence. 

The Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, affirming its role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility. The WCLJ and the Board identified multiple reasons for discrediting the claimant's account, including a two-week delay in reporting the slip and fall, lack of corroborating witnesses, and inconsistencies in his claims. Additionally, claimant's opposition to a job relocation and attempts to avoid work restrictions further undermined his credibility. Despite a CEO's recollection of the claimant reporting back strain during a move, the claimant continued to work without difficulty and made no complaints, casting further doubt on his account.

The Board found the claimant's actions, particularly secretly recording conversations with superiors, to be suspicious and detrimental to the credibility of his claims. The claimant failed to disclose prior neck and back injuries from a 2013 motor vehicle accident on his initial claim form, nor did he inform his treatment providers. He misled the independent medical examiner by stating those issues were resolved before the incidents in question, while also inconsistently claiming to have a 'bad back and neck' that required him to be cautious when lifting. The Board concluded that these inconsistencies, coupled with evidence of pre-existing degenerative conditions and the 2013 injury, undermined any medical opinions linking his current symptoms to recent incidents. The Board is granted broad authority to assess credibility and draw reasonable inferences from evidence. The Board's determination, supported by substantial evidence, will not be overturned, and remaining arguments from the claimant were deemed irrelevant or without merit. The decision is affirmed with costs. Additionally, the claimant filed a second claim in August 2019, which he did not recall submitting.