MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeals (1) from a decision of a panel of the Workers Compensation Board, filed January 21, 2020, which ruled that claimants use of certain prescription drugs was causally related to her work-related injury, and (2) from a decision of the full Board, filed May 1, 2020, which adhered to the Board panels decision.
In May 2014, claimant suffered a work-related injury to her back and her claim for workers compensation benefits was established. Claimant thereafter had three surgeries on her lumbar spine between April 2016 and June 2017. In 2019, claimants treating physician sought a variance from the Non–Acute Pain Medical Treatment Guidelines in order to prescribe the pain medication Lyrica. The physician also continued prescribing various other medications that claimant was currently taking, including gabapentin. The employers workers compensation carrier denied the variance request and sought a hearing on the causal relationship of Lyrica. At the hearing, the carrier argued that neither the need for Lyrica nor gabapentin were causally related to claimants work injury, given that claimant had been prescribed the medications one month prior to her work-related injury. The Workers Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) disagreed, finding that the need for Lyrica and gabapentin was causally related to claimants work injury. A panel of the Workers Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJs decision, with one member dissenting. Following mandatory full Board review, the full Board adhered to the Board panels decision that the carrier was liable for the cost of the medication. The employer and the carrier appeal from both the Board panel decision and the decision of the full Board.
1
We affirm. The employer or its workers compensation carrier must pay the cost of a claimants medical treatment “for such period as the nature of the injury or the process of recovery may require” (Workers Compensation Law § 13[a]; see Matter of Koniak v. Salamanca Bd. of Pub. Util., 139 A.D.3d 1290, 1292, 31 N.Y.S.3d 688 [2016]). The record reflects that claimant was taking Lyrica and gabapentin prior to her work injury for unrelated conditions, including polyarthralgia. Claimants physician testified that she was not treating claimant prior to her work injury. However, she testified that, although claimant had been prescribed the medication at issue prior to her treating claimant, in her opinion the medication is nonetheless needed to treat the lumbar pain caused by the work injury. Although the carriers medical examiner found that the medications were either not causally related to claimants work injury or unnecessary, the Board was “empowered to resolve the conflicting medical evidence and to credit the opinion of claimants expert over the [carriers] expert” (Matter of Byrnes v. New Is. Hosp., 167 A.D.3d 1128, 1129, 87 N.Y.S.3d 751 [2018]; see Matter of Caezza v. Via Health, 111 A.D.3d 1033, 1034, 976 N.Y.S.2d 243 [2013]). Consequently, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Boards determination that claimants need for the medication is causally related to her work injury and that the carrier must, therefore, bear the cost thereof during the period of claimants recovery from that injury (see Workers Compensation Law § 13[a]; Matter of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Auth., 71 A.D.3d 1252, 1253, 896 N.Y.S.2d 257 [2010]; Matter of Bolds v. Precision Health, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 1007, 1009, 792 N.Y.S.2d 673 [2005]).
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision filed January 21, 2020 is dismissed, without costs.
ORDERED that the decision filed May 1, 2020 is affirmed, without costs.
FOOTNOTES
1
. As the Board panels January 21, 2020 decision was superseded by the decision of the full Board, the appeal by the employer and the carrier from the Board panel decision must be dismissed (see Matter of Empara v. New Rochelle Sch. Dist., 130 A.D.3d 1127, 1129 n., 12 N.Y.S.3d 391 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 7288984 [2015]).
Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.
Egan Jr., J.P., Aarons, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ., concur.