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
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE AGREEMENT TO CONVEY A FARM TO A PARTNERSHIP WAS SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS FOR PART PERFORMANCE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL APOLOGIZED TO COUNTY COURT AND INDICATED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S BEHAVIOR MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE WITHDRAWN A MORE FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL AND SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REOFFER THE PRIOR PLEA DEAL (THIRD DEPT).
Standard for Upward Child Support Modification, Agreement Incorporated But Not Merged.
ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).
Precise Dates of Abuse Need Not Be Proven in a Family Court Act Article 10 Proceeding/Exclusion of Respondent from Proceedings During Child’s Testimony Was Proper
CLAIMANT’S MATTER WAS FULLY CLOSED AND WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND FOR REOPENED CASES, DESPITE CONTINUING PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND AN UNRELATED ROBBERY WHICH WERE CHARGED IN A SINGLE INDICTMENT, AFTER A MAN CONFESSED TO THE MURDER, CLAIMANT’S MURDER CONVICTION WAS VACATED BUT THE ROBBERY CONVICTION REMAINED, REVERSING THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE THIRD DEPT DETERMINED CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE UNJUST MURDER CONVICTION AND RELATED IMPRISONMENT (THIRD DEPT).
COMPUTER DESKTOP ENGINEER NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF JOB PLACEMENT SERVICE.

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...