Law Firm of Mary J. Mraz, Albany (Mary J. Mraz of counsel), for appellant. Hamberger & Weiss LLP, Rochester (Joseph P. DeCoursey of counsel), for Burrell Orchards, Inc. and another, respondents. Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 31, 2018, which, among other things, denied claimant’s request to reopen a prior decision. In 1996, Roy Jones (hereinafter decedent), a farmer, sustained serious injuries when he fell off a ladder while picking apples and landed on the ground. Decedent filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits (hereinafter the injury claim), which was not controverted by the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier), alleging that he was paralyzed from the waist down. Decedent’s injury claim was subsequently established for a C7-T1 fracture with a spinal cord injury, causing paralysis of the lower extremities and a neurogenic bladder. In a 1999 amended decision, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) classified decedent with a permanent total disability, continued benefits based upon the average weekly wage amount that had been previously set and marked the injury claim for no further action as all then- present issues were found to be resolved. The carrier continued to pay awards until decedent’s death on May 27, 2017, at which time the carrier suspended benefits. Following decedent’s death, claimant, decedent’s surviving spouse, filed a claim for death benefits (hereinafter the death claim), which was established without objection from the carrier at an April 2018 hearing. During that hearing, claimant requested an upward modification of the average weekly wage that was previously set in 1997 in the underlying injury claim, and the carrier raised the defense of laches, claiming, among other things, that such request was untimely. The WCLJ denied claimant’s request to increase the average weekly wage in the injury claim, and claimant sought administrative review requesting that the injury claim be reopened pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 22 and 123 to increase the average weekly wage and to address the issue of reimbursement for home health care services that claimant had provided to decedent during his lifetime. Both claimant and the carrier also filed applications for Board review (RB-89 form) in the death claim. In an October 2018 decision, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied claimant’s application to reopen, finding that claimant’s requests were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Board also denied claimant’s and the carrier’s applications for Board review in the death claim, determining that their responses to question number 15 were incomplete and, therefore, failed to comply with the Board’s formatting requirements. Claimant appeals, challenging the Board’s denial of her request to reopen the injury claim.[1] It is well settled that the Board has continuing power and jurisdiction over each claim, and it may in its discretion modify or change an award “as in its opinion may be just” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 123; see Matter of Sanchez v. Jacobi Med. Ctr., 182 AD3d 121, , 118 NYS3d 792, 797 [2020]; Matter of Mundy v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 178 AD3d 1178, 1180-1181 [2019]; Matter of Donovan v. BOCES Rockland County, 63 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2009]). As relevant here, “upon the application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change in conditions or proof of erroneous wage rate, the Board may at any time review any award, decision or order and, on such review, may make an award ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously awarded” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 22; see Workers’ Compensation Law § 123; Matter of Pace v. Concepts in Wood of CNY, Inc., 16 AD3d 804, 804 [2005]). In exercising its discretion to modify a prior award upon an application to reopen (see 12 NYCRR 300.14; Matter of Sinacore v. Dreier Structural Steel, Inc., 97 AD2d 659, 659 [1983]), any factual determination with regard thereto will not be disturbed so long as it is supported by substantial record evidence (see Matter of Lanese v. Anthem Health Servs., 165 AD3d 1373, 1374 [2018]; Matter of Cuva v. State Ins. Fund, 144 AD3d 1362, 1364 [2016]).
