You are here: / / CLAIMANT, A LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH ATTENDANT, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL AFTER...

CLAIMANT, A LIVE-IN HOME HEALTH ATTENDANT, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL AFTER PICKING UP MEDICAL RECORDS FROM HER DOCTOR’S OFFICE; THE PURPOSE OF HER VISIT TO THE DOCTOR’S OFFICE WAS NOT PURELY PERSONAL; THEREFORE SHE WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that claimant, a 24-hour home health aide, was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits even though she was injured when she fell after picking up records from her doctor’s office:

… [I]t is undisputed that it was routine for claimant to escort her client on four- or five-hour walks on days where the client had no scheduled appointments, such as the day of the subject incident. According to claimant, while on such a walk on the day of the incident, she and her client elected to briefly stop at the subject doctor’s office for multiple reasons — to collect medical paperwork pertaining to claimant’s employment and to confirm whether the doctor accepted the client’s insurance prior to scheduling her an appointment. * * *

… [T]here is not substantial evidence that claimant’s actions represented a deviation from employment as conduct specifically prohibited by the employer … . Further, without regard to whether claimant prospectively inquired about the acceptance of her client’s insurance, claimant’s act of briefly stopping while on a routine walk with her client, regardless of where that stop took place, simply cannot be said to be purely personally or wholly unrelated to her work. Moreover, stopping at the subject doctor’s office in order to collect the subject paperwork benefited the employer by allowing claimant to continue to provide round-the-clock care to her client, and to secure the documentation necessary to ensure that such care would not be interrupted in the future. We therefore find that, under the circumstances, claimant’s activity was reasonable, sufficiently work related and, thus, not purely personal, such that the Board’s decision to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Sharipova v BNV Home Care Agency, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00605, Third Dept 2-4-21

 

You might also like
DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED BY THE INSURED; HERE THE INSURED UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK COLE, WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND A THIRD PERSON; BECAUSE THE INJURY TO COLE WAS UNINTENDED, THE INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE INSURED IN COLE’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED (THIRD DEPT). ​
BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PRECLUDED FROM FURTHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR FAILURE TO SEEK PERMISSION BEFORE SETTLING A RELATED TORT ACTION, MEANING OF THIRD PARTY ACTION IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED.
THE ELICITATION OF TESTIMONY FROM A DETECTIVE THAT DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS AND DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ABSENCE OF A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION RENDERED THE ERROR REVERSIBLE (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract
ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION THE INMATE CURSED AT AND THREATENED A CORRECTION OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED, THE CONCURRENCE NOTED THE OFFICER WAS NOT WEARING A BODY CAMERA, DESPITE THE PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED IN 2018 (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE “PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE” DID NOT APPLY TO REQUIRE A STAY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) TO DETERMINE WHETHER “STRAY VOLTAGE” WAS CAUSING INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S CATTLE AND, IF SO, HOW BEST TO MITIGATE OR REMEDIATE; THE PSC HAS NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF STRAY VOLTAGE ON CATTLE; THE ISSUES ARE BEST HANDLED BY A COURT, DESPITE THE COMPETING EXPERT OPINIONS (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RARE CASE IN WHICH A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY... THERE WAS NO PROOF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 WAS MAILED TO THE PROPER...