You are here: / / ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHILE HE WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE...

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHILE HE WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE TO WORK (USUALLY NOT COMPENSABLE), HIS INJURY WAS FOUND COMPENSABLE BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE (WCLJ) UNDER THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION; BECAUSE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, remitting the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board did not address the basis of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s (WCLJ’s) ruling that claimant was entitled to benefits. Claimant was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle to work. Although travel to work is usually not covered by Workers’ Compensation, the WCLJ found that “claimant was engaged in a special errand given that he was traveling for the purpose of an overtime assignment and at a location different from his regular work locations.” That issue was not addressed by the Board:

In finding that the claim was compensable, the WCLJ found that claimant was engaged in a special errand given that he was traveling for the purpose of an overtime assignment and at a location different from his regular work locations. The Board, however, did not address the exception relied upon by the WCLJ but, instead, found that the outside employee exception did not apply in concluding that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of claimant’s employment. Whether an exception to the general rule applies turns on the Board’s fact-intensive analysis of the particular circumstances of a given case … , and “[t]he courts are bound by the . . . Board’s findings of fact which, including the ultimate fact of arising out of and in the course [of employment], must stand unless erroneous in law and regardless of whether conflicting evidence is available” … . The fact that claimant was not an outside employee, as found by the Board, is not dispositive as to whether the special errand exception applies, which was the basis of the WCLJ’s finding that claimant was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. As the Board has made no findings of fact with regard to whether the special errand exception applies, the matter must be remitted to the Board for further proceedings in regard to this particular issue…. . Matter of Waters v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02474, Third Dept 4-14-22

​Practice Point: Although injury while traveling to work is usually not covered by Workers’ Compensation, there are exceptions, including the “special errand” exception which was deemed to apply here by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge.

 

You might also like
FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRANSCRIPT OF LINCOLN HEARING.
Approval of an MRI Within Seven Years of Closure of Claimant’s Case Effectively Reopened the Case—Transfer to the Special Fund for Closed Cases Was Error
THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT REFORMATION OF AN INSURANCE POLICY ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO NAME THEM INDIVIDUALLY AS INSUREDS WAS DUE TO A MUTUAL MISTAKE; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
Damages in Medical Malpractice Case Paid by Insurer and Hospital—Therefore Doctor, a Defendant in the Medical Malpractice Case, Could Show No Pecuniary Loss—Legal Malpractice Suit by Doctor Must Therefore Be Dismissed
Prior Owner of a Nursing Home Did Not Have Standing to Seek Payments from Medicaid for the Period During His Ownership—Only the Current Owner/Operator of the Nursing Home Had Standing
IT IS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR DEFENDANT TO NOT BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR WHICH RESULTS IN GRANTING A PEREMPTORY OR FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, AN ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A FACT WITNESS WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING (THIRD DEPT).
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Nonparent’s Petition for Custody of a Child, and Awarded Custody to the Father and Mother, in the Absence of an Evidentiary Hearing
PURPORTED MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT REVIVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE PURCHASERS OF THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY OR THE BANK WHICH ISSUED A MORTGAGE SECURED BY THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY (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

BECAUSE CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A NONSCHEDULE AWARD DUE TO RETIREMENT,... THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION PETITIONER-INMATE WAS GUILTY...