CompFox AI Summary
Claimant, with an established work-related shoulder injury from January 2013, underwent surgery in May 2013 and received temporary total disability benefits until October 2013 while out of work. The employer presented video surveillance from July and August 2013 showing the claimant performing lawn care activities for his independent business during this period. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly making false statements and disqualified him from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of a statutory violation, supported by substantial evidence regarding the claimant's failure to fully disclose his activities to the carrier and consultant. However, the court modified the decision, reversing the permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, ruling that such a severe penalty was disproportionate to the misconduct without adequate rationale.
Matter of Kodra v. Mondelez International, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Claimant, with an established work-related shoulder injury from January 2013, underwent surgery in May 2013 and received temporary total disability benefits until October 2013 while out of work. The employer presented video surveillance from July and August 2013 showing the claimant performing lawn care activities for his independent business during this period. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's decision, finding the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly making false statements and disqualified him from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of a statutory violation, supported by substantial evidence regarding the claimant's failure to fully disclose his activities to the carrier and consultant. However, the court modified the decision, reversing the permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, ruling that such a severe penalty was disproportionate to the misconduct without adequate rationale.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.