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
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Presumption Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent (Vehicle & Traffic Law 388) Was Not Overcome by Testimony of Vehicle Owner and Her Daughter—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Awarded on that Ground
THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT TRIAL, A DEFENDANT BRINGING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, GAPS IN DEFENDANT’S PROOF REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND DEPT).
Although the President of a Corporation Was Also a Member of Defendant Limited Liability Company, the Corporation and Limited Liability Were Not Shown to Be “United in Interest” Such that the “Relation-Back” Doctrine Would Apply to Allow Adding the Corporation as a Defendant After the Statute of Limitations Had Run
THE USUAL STRICT CRITERIA FOR VACATING A DEFAULT ORDER ARE RELAXED IN CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER AWARDING CUSTODY TO FATHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...