A notice arrives raising Section 114-a, or your attorney tells you the carrier has filed for a penalty. It is the most frightening thing that happens in a workers’ compensation case, and the fear is proportionate: this is the one motion that can end the wage side of your claim permanently.
What follows is what the statute actually says, what the courts have made of it, and where these cases are genuinely won — which is earlier than most people think.
The statute
Section 114-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law provides that where, “for the purpose of obtaining compensation pursuant to section fifteen of this chapter, or for the purpose of influencing any determination regarding any such payment, a claimant knowingly makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact, such person shall be disqualified from receiving any compensation directly attributable to such false statement or representation.”
Four words in that sentence do the work. Knowingly. False. Material. And directly attributable, which defines the first penalty.
There are two penalties, and the second one is the problem
The first is mandatory. If the Board finds a violation, you are disqualified from the compensation directly attributable to the false statement. That is arithmetic — a defined sum tied to a defined period.
The second is discretionary, and it is where cases are actually lost. On top of the mandatory penalty the Board may impose an additional penalty, and in the appropriate case that discretion extends to disqualifying a claimant from all future wage benefits on the claim. Not a period. The rest of it.
In Matter of Alzate v Quality Building Services Corp., decided by the Third Department in 2025, permanent disqualification from wage replacement benefits was upheld where a claimant had repeatedly denied prior neck and back injuries — on forms, at independent medical examinations, and under oath at a hearing — against extensive records documenting them.
What gets you the permanent penalty
The Third Department put the standard plainly in Matter of Sausto v Wildlife Conservation Society in 2022: permanent disqualification “typically occurs where the underlying deception has been deemed egregious or severe, or there was a lack of mitigating circumstances.”
Read the second half of that as carefully as the first. Mitigating circumstances matter — and they matter at the penalty stage even where the violation itself has already been found. A great deal of the useful work in a 114-a case happens after the bad finding, arguing about what the consequence should be.
Repetition is what tends to tip a case into “egregious.” One inaccurate answer on a form is a different animal from the same denial repeated on a form, then to an examining physician, then under oath.
“Material” is a lower bar than people assume
Claimants often reason that a misstatement did not matter because it would not have changed the outcome. That is not the test. Under Sausto, a fact is material “so long as it is significant or essential to the issue or matter at hand.”
Whether you worked. What you can lift. Whether you had a prior injury to the same body part. How much you earn. Whether you drove yourself somewhere. All of that is comfortably material, whether or not it would have swung the case.
Where these cases come from
Almost always one of five places.
- Prior injuries you did not disclose. The most common by far, and the subject of Alzate.
- Work or income that was not reported. Including cash work, a side business, or an ownership interest.
- Surveillance and social media. In Matter of Qureshi v Rite Aid Corporation, also 2025, tax returns and social media posts showing travel and business activity contradicted a claim of not working and being socially withdrawn.
- What you told the independent medical examiner. That examination is not a treatment visit. What you say there is written down and used.
- Your own testimony. Sworn answers that conflict with the documents, or with your earlier answers.
The prior-injury trap
This one deserves its own warning, because the instinct behind it is so understandable.
You hurt the same shoulder in 2016. It got better. You genuinely do not think of yourself as someone with a shoulder problem. A form asks whether you have ever injured that shoulder, and you are afraid that saying yes will let the carrier blame everything on the old injury — so you say no, or you say “nothing serious,” and you move on.
That answer is far more dangerous than the prior injury ever was.
A prior injury, disclosed, is an ordinary issue that gets handled — through apportionment, or through the rule that an employer takes a worker as it finds him. A prior injury denied and then discovered is a credibility problem that can cost you the whole wage claim. The old records exist. They are found. They are always found.
An honest word about appeals
You should know this going in rather than discovering it later. The reported decisions in this area overwhelmingly uphold the Board’s findings.
The reason is structural. Whether a statement was knowingly false is a question of fact and credibility, and that is the Board’s to decide. On review the question is not whether the court would have decided it the same way, but whether substantial evidence supports what the Board did. In Matter of Kornreich v Elmont Glass Co., the Third Department upheld permanent disqualification and rejected the claimant’s proffered mitigating circumstance outright, finding repeated denials egregious.
Which is the practical argument of this entire page: this is not a problem to be fixed on appeal. It is a problem to be handled at the form, at the examination, and at the hearing — or, if something inaccurate is already in the file, corrected before somebody else finds it.
If something in your file is wrong
Tell your attorney today. Not the carrier, not the examiner — your own lawyer, who can advise you on what to do about it.
People get this backward. They assume that raising it makes it real, so they stay quiet and hope. What actually happens is that the error hardens: it gets repeated at the next examination, then sworn to at a hearing, and a single inaccurate answer becomes the pattern of repetition that produces the permanent penalty.
A correction you volunteer is a different conversation from one the carrier’s investigator forces. It is not a guarantee of anything. It is, however, the difference between one mistake and a course of conduct.
The section cuts both ways
Worth knowing, because carriers occasionally raise 114-a as pressure rather than on the merits. The same section provides that costs shall be assessed against a party who institutes proceedings without reasonable ground, and that reasonable attorneys’ fees shall be assessed against an attorney or licensed representative who proceeds without reasonable grounds — payable to the Board.
A penalty application is not free of consequence for the side that files it.
Frequently asked questions
Does a 114-a finding mean I am charged with a crime?
No. Section 114-a is a penalty provision within the workers’ compensation system, decided by the Board, and a finding under it is not a criminal conviction. Separate criminal statutes on insurance fraud exist and are a different matter entirely, which is one more reason to have representation rather than to handle a penalty application alone.
Do I lose my medical treatment too?
The statute is directed at compensation under Section 15 — the wage replacement side — and the decisions describe disqualification from wage benefits. Medical treatment for an established injury generally stands on different footing. Do not treat that as a promise about your own case; ask specifically, because what is at stake differs depending on what the carrier has applied for.
I did not lie. I just forgot an old injury from fifteen years ago.
Then the fight is over the word “knowingly,” and it is a real fight rather than a hopeless one. Genuine memory failure, a poorly worded form, a language barrier, an injury that resolved decades ago and was never treated — these are arguments. They are considerably stronger when raised by you first, and considerably weaker after a second and third denial.
The carrier says the video contradicts me. Is that automatically a violation?
No. Footage showing you doing something on one day is not the same as proof you knowingly misrepresented your condition, particularly where symptoms fluctuate and where you have consistently described good days and bad ones. How surveillance is handled is its own subject and matters a great deal here.
Can I settle a case with a 114-a application pending?
Sometimes, and the pending application affects what the case is worth and how any agreement should be written. That is a conversation to have with counsel before responding to anything, not after.
What should I bring if a penalty has been raised?
Every form you filled out, every Board notice, whatever the carrier has served, and an honest account of the thing you are worried about. The last item is the one that matters. A lawyer who learns the problem at the hearing cannot help you with it.
If 114-a has been raised in your case
Do not answer it alone and do not wait for the hearing. Call 718.701.2776 or 800.310.5520.
This page describes New York law in general terms. It is not legal advice about your claim, and reading it does not make us your attorneys.
Talk to a New York workers’ compensation attorney
The Law Offices of Frank J. Dito, Jr. handles workers’ compensation claims from the office on Staten Island, for injured workers throughout the five boroughs and across New York State.
Call 718.701.2776 or 800.310.5520. Consultations are free. If we don’t recover money for you, we don’t get paid.
