Claim of Williams v. Lloyd Gunther Elevator Service, Inc., 104 A.D.3d 1013

Claimant had a compensable workers’ compensation claim in 2003 and also pursued a related third‑party personal injury action.
On September 16, 2010 the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier consented to a $35,000 settlement of the third‑party action.
Claimant received the third‑party settlement on October 5, 2010.
The carrier suspended further payments to claimant on October 1, 2010 pursuant to the settlement and sought an overpayment recovery.
A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge held that the carrier’s credit against claimant’s third‑party recovery commenced on October 5, 2010 (date of actual receipt).
The Board affirmed; the employer/carrier challenged contending the credit should commence on September 16, 2010 and sought reversal on that basis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the credit commence under §29(4)?	Carrier contends credit starts September 16, 2010.	Board’s rule that credit starts on actual collection (October 5, 2010).	Reversed; consent‑letter terms control, require remand for proper determination.
Does consent letter alone govern credit start date irrespective of who is liable in the third‑party action?	Consent letter language permits start on date of consent.	Start date tied to actual collection or other board precedents.	Reversed; prior precedents and consent terms show start date may be earlier based on consent language.
Did the Board irrationally depart from its prior precedent without rational explanation?	Board’s reasoning is inconsistent with prior decisions.	Board properly applied its current view of credit commencement.	Reversed; Board failed to rationally justify departure from established precedent.

Matter of Catapano v Jaw, Inc., 73 A.D.3d 1361 (2010) (Board must provide rational explanation when altering precedent; otherwise arbitrary and capricious)