You are here: / / COUNTY JAIL CORRECTIONS OFFICER ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION...

COUNTY JAIL CORRECTIONS OFFICER ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR PTSD AND DEPRESSION RESULTING FROM AN INMATE’S SPITTING ON HIM AND THREATENING TO KILL HIS FAMILY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s appeal was rendered moot because the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded its prior rulings and found claimant, a county jail corrections officer, could recover for PTSD and depression resulting from an inmate’s spitting on him (saliva exposure) and threatening to kill claimant’s family:

… [T]he Board panel …found … that claimant did not sustain a physical injury within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) and, further, that the recent amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (3) (b) did not apply to claimant; hence, claimant was “required to demonstrate that the stress encountered was greater than that which occurred in the normal work environment of a correction[] officer” … . On that latter point, the Board panel credited claimant’s testimony that the inmate in question “was more dangerous than the average inmate” and that “exposure to bodily fluids . . . was not a regular occurrence for [claimant] at work” … . Accordingly, the Board panel found that claimant experienced stress greater than similarly situated correction officers, that “establishment of the claim for . . . psychological conditions [was] supported by the credible evidence in the record” and that “the claim [was] properly amended to include PTSD, major depressive disorder[] and panic disorder’ … . Matter of Carey v Westchester County Dept. of Corr., 2019 NY Slip Op 03116, Third Dept 4-25-19

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE DOCTOR WAS AT WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHEN HE WAS SHOT DURING A MASS SHOOTING, HIS INJURY WAS NOT WORK-RELATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER WAITED EIGHT MONTHS WITHOUT RECEIVING A DECISION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE BEFORE FILING AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE DENIAL; PETITIONER WAS ENTITED TO THE “FUTILITY EXCEPTION” TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE TURNING TO THE COURTS (THIRD DEPT).
THE SUBSTANCE FOUND ON PETITIONER-INMATE’S PERSON WAS NOT TESTED OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED AS A DRUG; THE DRUG POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION, AS WELL AS THE SMUGGLING, DETERMINATIONS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS FATHER DID NOT ABIDE BY THE VISITATION TERMS AND USED DRUGS DURING VISITATION SUPPORTED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES (THIRD DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE TESTING USED TO DETERMINE THE SUBSTANCES WERE CONTRABAND DRUGS, POSSESSION OF DRUGS CHARGE ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
Burden Upon Police to Determine Whether Defendant Represented by Counsel Explained
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT, IN A HEARING-LOSS CASE, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AUDIOGRAM (HEARING TEST) WITH THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPERT EVIDENCE; THE AUDIOGRAM WAS NOT INCLUDED HERE AND THE BOARD DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT (BY CREDITING THE EXPERT EVIDENCE); DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE,... DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE HE MISCALCULATED AND FILED A SPEEDY...