New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

McGUINNESS v. NEW YORK STATE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD, #2006-036-524, Claim No. 111914, Motion No. M-71430


Synopsis


Claim dismissed . . . court lacks jurisdiction to review determination of Workers’ Compensation Board.

Case Information

UID:
2006-036-524
Claimant(s):
HUGH G. McGUINNESS
Claimant short name:
McGUINNESS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
NEW YORK STATE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111914
Motion number(s):
M-71430
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
MELVIN L. SCHWEITZER
Claimant’s attorney:
HUGH G. McGUINNESS, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALby Ellen Matowik Russell, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 1, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:
AFFIRMED 41 AD3D 537 2D DEPT 6/12/07
See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction. [1] The claim arises out of claimant’s dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board in two claims, alleging that the Board denied claimant timely hearings, misclassified his claims, did not enforce their own laws and denied him due process.

As defendant argues, the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to review determinations of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The decision in Baltsavias v State of New York (121 AD2d 421 [2d Dept, 1986]) is controlling, notwithstanding claimant’s contention that what he is disputing is not the adequacy of the awards but their distribution:
In this case, the claimant asserts that the amount awarded to him by the Workers' Compensation Board for his injuries is inadequate. However, the claimant incorrectly brought this action in the Court of Claims. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8, the State's waiver of immunity from liability does not affect any provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, and pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 23, the adequacy or inadequacy of the award is subject to review on direct appeal from the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board to the Appellate Division, Third Department. Hence, because the State has not waived its immunity for claims such as the one at bar, the Court of Claims correctly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed



May 1, 2006
New York, New York

HON. MELVIN L. SCHWEITZER
Judge of the Court of Claims





2006-036-52400.jpg


[1]
.The court considered the Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibit, and Claimant’s Responding Papers.