You are here: / / CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED SHE CONTRACTED COVID AT THE WORKPLACE AND WAS ENTITLED...

CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED SHE CONTRACTED COVID AT THE WORKPLACE AND WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that contracting COVID-19 at the workplace entitled claimant to Worders’ Compensation benefits:

… [S]ubstantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant sustained a work-related injury by contracting COVID-19 in the course of her employment due to specific exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace … . Further, the Board correctly employed the presumption provided by Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), “that an accident that occurs in the course of employment also arises out of that employment” … . Claimant’s treating pulmonary and critical care physician testified that, assuming the facts as claimant and the lay witness testified, which the Board credited, there was a “strong probability” that claimant contracted COVID-19 in the workplace, and the carrier did not submit contrary testimony negating a causal relationship … . Although the medical providers could not offer a conclusive medical opinion as to where claimant contracted COVID-19 so as to establish a causal connection between her contraction of COVID-19 and her employment, the testimony credited by the Board combined with the statutory presumption sufficiently established that she contracted COVID-19 at work from a coworker, and the medical providers’ testimony established that her injuries were the result of, and arose out of, contracting COVID-1 … . Matter of Leonard v David’s Bridal, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00837, Third Dept 2-15-24

Practice Point: This decision demonstrates it is possible to prove COVID was contracted at the workplace entitling the worker to Workers’ Compensation benefits.

 

You might also like
SEARCH OF BRIEFCASE FOUND NEAR DEFENDANT UPON ARREST WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; EVIDENCE OF ROBBERY FOUND IN THE BRIEFCASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
Failure to Identify in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars the Specific Code Provision(s) Alleged to Have Been Violated Is Not Fatal to a Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE MADE AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING, THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within 60 Days Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Claim
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order Making Specific Findings that Would Allow Her to Petition for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR ACTION WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT ACTION BECAUSE THE STANDING ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME (SECOND 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

A RESTAURANT PROPERTY-INSURANCE POLICY WHICH COVERS “DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS... THE ATTEMPT TO CORRECT A SENTENCING MISTAKE IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE...