In other words, up to the amount of any past compensation paid, the lien is enforceable against the entire amount of the recovery or settlement in the third-party action (albeit after subtraction of attorneys' fees and other litigation costs) (see Matter of Granger v Urda, 44 NY2d 91, 96 [the "carrier shall have a lien on the proceeds of any recovery by the claimant to the extent of compensation and medical expenses awarded"], 99 [the "section 29 lien in favor of a compensation carrier . . . attaches to the proceeds of any recovery' in favor of a compensation claimant against a third party"] ; see also McHenry, 236 AD2d at 91). Consequently, the funds to which the lien attaches properly include any sums earmarked for pain and suffering or other elements of damages not covered by workers compensation (see Scannell v Karlin, 252 AD2d 552, 553 [2d Dept 1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 805 ; Matter of Parmelee v International Paper Co., 157 AD2d 878 [3d Dept 1990]; Matter of Simmons v St. Lawrence County CDP, 147 AD2d 323, 325 [3d Dept 1989]; cf. Johnson v Buffalo & Erie County Private Industry Council, 84 NY2d 13, 17-20 [1994). Therefore, there is no occasion under the New York scheme for inquiring into whether and to what extent the case may have been settled by the injured worker for less than its true value or his actual total damages. Equally significantly, because the compensation carrier is entitled to a lien against the entire amount of the injured worker's recovery or settlement, there is no occasion under the New York scheme for inquiring into what portion of the settlement proceeds covers lost wages and medical expenses for which the injured worker has already been compensated, as opposed to pain and suffering or other items of damage not covered by workers' compensation.