Judge Declines to Permanently Disqualify Claimant Despite Video of His Running Business 

What Went Wrong?

Video footage is essential when seeking to terminate workers’ compensation benefits based on a claimant’s misrepresentation of his injuries or ability to work. A case involving an employee who had been collecting benefits for about 15 years shows where the video footage could come up short. 

The facts 

In DeBryne v. Pittsford Mercury, Inc., No. CV-23-2275 (N.Y. App. Div. 03/13/25), the claimant was classified as permanently disabled in 2007 due to work-related shoulder and hip injuries. 

In 2022, the employer sought to terminate his benefits based on video surveillance. It contended that the claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. 

The video footage captured the employer’s investigator’s attempted sting. It showed the investigator asking the claimant for a home improvement estimate. In the video, the claimant is wearing a company shirt, suggesting that he was engaging in work for profit while receiving benefits.  

The legal rule 

§ 114-a provides:  

• “If for the purpose of obtaining compensation …, a claimant knowingly makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact, such person shall be disqualified from receiving any compensation directly attributable to such false 
  statement or representation.” 

• “[A]s determined by the board, the claimant shall be subject to a disqualification or an additional penalty up to the foregoing amount directly attributable to the false statement or representation.” 

The legal case 

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge agreed that the claimant had violated § 114-a and rescinded the workers' compensation benefits already paid. The WCLJ also barred him from receiving workers’ compensation for six months. However, the judge refused to permanently disqualify him from future benefits. The employer appealed that decision.  

On appeal, the court noted that when a claimant violates § 114-a, a WCLJ has authority to disqualify him from future benefits. That decision, however, is up to the WCLJ. A court generally won’t reverse it unless the judge was obviously wrong (the judge engaged in “abuse of discretion”). 

The court explained that the imposition of such a penalty typically is reserved for situations where the underlying deception has been deemed egregious or severe, or there was a lack of mitigating circumstances.  

The court conceded that the video showed the claimant was operating a business. However, because there was no clear evidence of him performing actual work, there was no basis to permanently bar him from future benefits.  

“[A]lthough claimant clearly was operating a business and furthering his professional endeavors by providing the carrier's investigator with the requested estimate, in the absence of any observed exertional efforts, such activities were not sufficiently egregious to warrant the penalty of permanent disqualification,” the court wrote. 

What went wrong in the case 

Although the employer was largely successful, obtaining an order to rescind benefits, it could have had a more solid case, and it could have permanently disqualified the claimant had it obtained more footage. 

To prepare better before going before the WCLJ, and before appealing the latter’s decision, the employer ideally should have had the investigator obtain footage of the claimant exerting himself by engaging in physical activity that would have required the use of his hips and shoulders, such as lifting or moving heavy objects.  

Share This Article: