New York State Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of workers’ compensation benefits to a retired road construction worker, backing regulators who excluded medical evidence after improper contact between the claimant’s lawyer and a physician.
In Matter of Petti v. Asplundh Construction Corp., the Appellate Division, Third Department, agreed with the Workers’ Compensation Board that the communication crossed a line.
The ruling affirms the rejection of an occupational hearing loss claim filed in 2023 by Richard Petti against Asplundh Construction and its insurer, the State Insurance Fund.
Petti alleged binaural hearing loss tied to years of exposure to loud construction noise. His employer and the insurer disputed the claim from the outset.
The case unraveled when a workers’ compensation law judge found that Petti’s attorney had engaged in improper verbal contact with the treating physician.
That contact mattered. The judge excluded the doctor’s medical report, which removed the foundation of the claim.
The issue centered on an addendum added days after the physician completed his initial report. In it, the doctor stated that Petti’s lawyer had called and asked whether the hearing loss could be related to Petti’s work history. That detail changed everything.
Petti’s attorney admitted making the call but said it focused only on obtaining medical records, not steering the doctor’s conclusions. The board didn’t buy it.
Regulators found that the conversation touched directly on causation, the central question in the case, and described the exchange as suggestive rather than unclear.
Under New York workers’ compensation rules and board guidance, attorneys and other parties cannot influence, or appear to influence, a medical provider’s opinion.
Verbal contact raises sharper concerns than written requests, and the board retains broad discretion to discount or exclude evidence affected by such conduct.
The appellate court agreed that the board acted within that discretion. Once the medical report came out, the claim had nowhere to go.
Matter of Petti v. Asplundh Construction Corp. Court opinion & case details
- The official appellate decision (Case No. CV-24-1606) confirms that Petti, a retired road construction worker, filed his workers’ compensation claim in 2023 alleging binaural hearing loss caused by exposure to loud construction noise. The employer (Asplundh Construction) and its workers’ compensation carrier contested the claim at every stage.
- A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that Petti’s lawyer engaged in improper ex parte verbal communication with the treating physician and accorded no weight to the physician’s medical report, which was the primary evidence on causation. The judge then disallowed the claim.
- The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld that ruling on administrative review, emphasizing that the communication touched on the central issue — causation — and was “suggestive, rather than ambiguous.”
On appeal, the Third Department rejected Petti’s argument that the call was limited to a records request, finding the Board acted within its discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-a(6), which prohibits attempts to improperly influence a medical provider’s opinion.
The appellate ruling explains that verbal contact between a claimant’s attorney and the treating physician raises particular concerns of improper influence, and the Board may discount or exclude tainted medical evidence, especially when the contact relates directly to causation.
The Petti case appears on the NY Workers’ Compensation Board’s published list of recent appellate decisions for December 19, 2025, under the heading “Attempt to improperly influence a medical opinion (§ 13-a(6)).” This confirms that the appellate court’s ruling is part of the official precedents tracked by the Board.
