You are here: / / No Need to Be Affiliated with an Authorized Rescue Entity or Volunteer...

No Need to Be Affiliated with an Authorized Rescue Entity or Volunteer Agency to Qualify for Benefits from World Trade Center Volunteer Fund

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined that the claimant, who was not affiliated with any authorized rescue entity or volunteer agency, but who participated in rescue efforts at or near the World Trade Center on September 11 and 12, 2001, was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits:

Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A, which is to be afforded a liberal construction, “was enacted ‘to remove statutory obstacles to timely claims filing and notice for latent conditions resulting from hazardous exposure for those who worked in rescue, recovery or cleanup operations following the World Trade Center September 11, 2001 attack'” …, quoting Senate Mem in Support, 2006 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 1915). A “volunteer” may qualify for coverage under the statute provided he or she tenders to the Board satisfactory evidence that he or she participated in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations at the World Trade Center site (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [1]; [b]; [i]) — a geographical location defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 (2) — between September 11, 2001 and September 12, 2002 and suffers from a “[q];ualifying condition,” including rhinitis and sinusitis (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [3]; [a]), gastroesophageal reflux disease (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [3]; [c]) and anxiety or depression (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 161 [3]; [d]). Here, the Board did not directly address the time, location and activity elements of the statute; rather, the Board denied claimant’s application for workers’ compensation benefits solely because claimant “did not serve under the direction of an authorized rescue entity or volunteer agency” and, hence, “[did]; not meet the definition of [a]; volunteer” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A.

* * * Noticeably absent from both Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A and the commonly understood meaning of the word volunteer is any requirement that such individual “serve under the direction of an authorized rescue entity or volunteer agency.” Accordingly, the Board’s imposition of such a requirement is, to our analysis, contrary to the plain terms of the statute. Matter of Hazan v WTC Volunteer Fund, 2014 NY Slip Op 04103, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

You might also like
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IF THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE REFEREE’S REPORT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TO SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).
NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CHURCH PROPERTY TO BE USED TO HOUSE HOMELESS PERSONS.
PLAINTIFF SUED THE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, NOT THE FIRE DISTRICT WHICH WAS THE PROPER PARTY, PLAINTIFF NEVER SERVED A NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE DISTRICT, THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Career-Related Relocations Did Not Result in Change of Domicile
People Failed to Prove Seizure of Cocaine at Police Station Was Not the Fruit of the Illegal Arrest—Attenuation Not Demonstrated
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY A DISCOVERY DEMAND WERE ENTITLED TO CONDITIONAL IMMUNITY AS DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION, MATTER REMITTED FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS.

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

Lump Sum Settlement with Third Party Barred Transfer of Employer’s Liability... An Unconditional Guaranty of Payment of a Another’s Obligations Is Enforceable...