He gave three versions of the same fall. The fraud argument still failed
A New York carpenter gave his boss one version of a workplace fall, his doctor another, and the paperwork a third.
On April 20, 2023, the worker told his employer, concrete firm Expo Concrete, that he had tripped over material on the floor. The hospital diagnosed an orbital wall fracture, a subdermal hematoma and a left forearm contusion.
Two weeks later, his treating physician noted something different: the worker said he had fallen from 10 feet. Then came the formal workers’ compensation claim - he stepped on plywood that broke, sending him to the ground below. The injury list grew to include his neck, back, shoulder, elbow, wrist, a fractured radius, and headaches.
Three stories. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier cried foul.
A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim for the facial fracture and elbow injury in September 2023, finding preliminary medical evidence for neck and back injuries too. The carrier did not appeal.
Only at later hearings did the carrier raise two new arguments: that the worker failed to give proper notice, and that his shifting accounts amounted to fraud under Workers’ Compensation Law section 114-a - the provision that strips benefits from claimants who knowingly make false statements to obtain them.
The worker had a straightforward explanation. Coworkers told him after the fall that reporting the real story would get them and the employer in trouble, and they could lose their jobs. He was in pain and wanted to get to the hospital. The Board believed him.
On the notice challenge, the Board would not even hear it. The conflicting accounts were already in the case file before the September 2023 decision. The carrier had its window to object. It let it close.
New York’s Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board on all issues on October 8, 2026, in a unanimous decision. The court deferred to the Board’s credibility finding: the misrepresentation about how the worker fell was not made to obtain benefits. Nobody disputed he fell on the job. The carrier’s own medical consultant found the reported injuries consistent with objective clinical findings - and offered no opinion challenging causation.
The court upheld amending the claim to include neck and back injuries, finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination.
For HR teams handling injury claims, the case puts a fine point on timing: if a worker’s account raises questions, raise them at the first opportunity. This carrier waited, and the court held it to that silence.
