“Unlucky 13”: Failing to Answer Question on RB-89 Dooms NY Claimant’s Application for Board Review

A New York claimant’s Application for Review was defective where she failed to provide any information in the box for question 13 of the RB-89 form, held a New York appellate court recently in Matter of Jones v Human Resources Admin., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5343 (July 3, 2019). The claimant, a fraud investigator for the City of New York, sustained work-related injuries when she jumped from a stopped elevator into the arms of a firefighter. Her subsequent claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established for a work-related injury to her right knee and amended to include consequential adjustment disorder. A WCLJ later denied her request to add additional consequential injuries to her claim.

Left Question 13 Blank

The appellate court noted that record reflected that when claimant, who was represented by counsel, filed her application for Board review (form RB-89), question number 13 on that application requested that claimant provide the “[h]earing dates, [t]ranscripts, [d]ocuments, [e]xhibits, and other evidence that she would rely upon in her administrative appeal and advised her to “see instructions for details.” The court added that it was not disputed that claimant’s application, however, failed to provide the requested information by leaving the box for question number 13 blank.

For is Not a “Cover Sheet”

The court stressed that in its guidance document on the issue, the Board had stressed that the RB-89 was the application for review itself; it is “not merely a coversheet” (Workers' Comp Bd, Office of General Counsel, Guidance Document on the Proper Application of Board Rule 300.13, at 1). As explained by the Board, requiring an applicant to fill out the application for Board review completely assisted the responding party in identifying the exact issues, grounds and evidence used in support of the application in determining the issues and crafting a timely and effective rebuttal. Having a complete application also assisted the Board in providing timely and effective review of the application.

Broad Discretion

The appellate court concluded that the Board's format requirements for applications for Board review submitted by represented claimants were reasonable given the reasons identified by the Board and were promulgated pursuant to its statutory authority and broad regulatory powers. The court found that the Board had acted within its discretion in denying claimant’s application for Board review.