- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
- Case
- Matter of Price v. Premium Brands Opco, LLC
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03346
Background
Claimant Jennifer L. Price, an assistant manager at a retail store, applied for workers’ compensation benefits after tripping and falling at work in November 2023. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim for a work-related cervical spine injury but found that Price failed to present prima facie medical evidence for an alleged left knee injury. Price filed an application for Board review using form RB-89 but did not complete the portion affirming that she had filed the application with the Board and omitted the date of service in averring that she had served the application on other parties. The employer and carrier argued that the application should be denied due to these procedural omissions. Price responded by filing a supplemental form RB-89 and argued that the omissions should be excused under Workers’ Compensation Law section 118. The Board denied review, finding that Price failed to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13(b). Price’s subsequent application for reconsideration and full Board review was also denied. She appealed both decisions.
Holding
The Appellate Division addressed whether the Board properly denied review based on the claimant’s failure to fully complete the RB-89 form. The Court examined the interplay between the procedural requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b), which governs the form and content of applications for Board review, and Workers’ Compensation Law section 118, which permits the Board to excuse procedural irregularities that do not prejudice the opposing party. The Court analyzed whether the omissions in the initial RB-89 form were the type of deficiencies that could be cured by a supplemental filing or excused under the statutory authority to overlook technical defects.
Takeaways
Procedural compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13(b) in filing applications for Board review is important, but the Board has discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law section 118 to excuse certain technical deficiencies. The question is whether the omission is a substantive failure that prejudices the opposing party or a technical defect that can be cured. Claimants and their attorneys should ensure that RB-89 forms are fully and properly completed at the time of initial filing, as the Board’s willingness to excuse deficiencies is not guaranteed and incomplete filings risk denial of review.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the procedural requirements for seeking Board review of WCLJ decisions. Workers’ compensation practitioners should be meticulous in completing RB-89 forms, including all certifications of filing and service. The case highlights the risk that even seemingly minor omissions—failing to check a box or fill in a date—can result in the denial of an appeal and the loss of the opportunity for Board review. While section 118 provides a safety valve for technical defects, relying on it is a risky strategy that should not substitute for careful compliance with the procedural rules.