96 N.Y.2d 36 (2001)
An employer’s application for discretionary full Board review of a unanimous Workers’ Compensation Board panel decision does not operate as a stay of the employer’s obligation to make payments to the claimant.
Summary
Betty Lou Lehsten filed for workers’ compensation benefits for a back injury. The employer, NACM-Upstate New York, controverted the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined the injury was work-related and awarded benefits. The employer sought review from a three-member panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board, which affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The employer then applied for discretionary full Board review but did not pay the award. The WCLJ imposed a 20% penalty for nonpayment, which the Board panel affirmed. The Appellate Division sustained the benefits determination but reversed the penalty. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that applying for full Board review does not stay the payment obligation.
Facts
In June 1993, Betty Lou Lehsten filed for workers’ compensation benefits, alleging an on-the-job back injury. Her employer, NACM-Upstate New York, contested the claim. After medical examinations and a hearing, the WCLJ ruled on May 3, 1994, that Lehsten’s injury was work-related and she was entitled to benefits. The employer filed for Board review on June 1, 1994. After the Board panel unanimously affirmed the WCLJ’s decision on June 7, 1995, the employer filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division and applied for full Board review on July 7, 1995, continuing to withhold payment of the award.
Procedural History
The WCLJ initially awarded benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board panel affirmed. The employer sought discretionary full Board review and appealed to the Appellate Division. The WCLJ imposed a penalty for non-payment during the full Board review process, which the Board panel affirmed. The Appellate Division sustained the benefits award but reversed the penalty. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s decision regarding the penalty, reinstating the Board’s penalty decision.
Issue(s)
Whether an employer, by filing for discretionary full Board review of a unanimous Workers’ Compensation Board panel finding, gains a continuation of the stay of its obligation to pay the workers’ compensation award.
Holding
No, because neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 nor § 25(3)(f) provides for a stay pending discretionary full Board review. To allow a stay in this instance would frustrate the legislative intent of promoting prompt payment of workers’ compensation benefits.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the workers’ compensation statutory scheme contemplates a two-level administrative review process: from the WCLJ to a Board panel and then to the Appellate Division. While full Board review is possible, it is discretionary unless a panel member dissents. Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 explicitly states that an appeal to the Appellate Division does not stay payment of compensation. Workers’ Compensation Law § 25(3)(f) provides a stay only during the initial application to the Board for review of the WCLJ’s decision. The Court emphasized the “public policy in favor of prompt payment of workers’ compensation benefits to injured employees” (Matter of Keser v New York State Elmira Psychiatric Ctr., 92 NY2d 100, 105). Allowing a stay during discretionary full Board review would undermine this policy and the 1970 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, which repealed the stay provision for appeals to the Appellate Division. The Court also addressed the employer’s argument regarding reimbursement if the full Board modifies or rescinds an award, pointing out that Workers’ Compensation Law § 22 allows for deductions from future payments and that the Board has the power to provide for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 142(1). The Court concluded that interpreting the statute to allow a stay during discretionary review would confound the statutory protocol, stating, “Given the legislative intent toward promoting efficiency by removing the Appellate Division stay in Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, we will not strain to reintroduce it, in slightly different attire, in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f).”