You are here: / Workers' Compensation
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER ALLEGED TWO FELLOW OFFICERS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED HIM WITH A TASER; PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE HIS FELLOW OFFICERS IN TORT AND HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine plaintiff police officer’s petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted and his complaint against two fellow police officers should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged the two officers negligently tased him. Plaintiff cannot sue the fellow officers in tort, and his exclusive remedy is Workers’ Compensation:

While a police officer can assert a common-law tort cause of action against the general public pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106(1), “liability against a fellow officer or employer can only be based on the statutory right of action in General Municipal Law § 205-e” … . General Municipal Law § 205-e(1) specifies that “nothing in this section shall be deemed to expand or restrict any right afforded to or limitation imposed upon an employer, an employee or his or her representative by virtue of any provisions of the workers’ compensation law” … .

Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, “[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee . . . when such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ” … . Thus, the Workers’ Compensation Law “offers the only remedy for injuries caused by [a] coemployee’s negligence” in the course of employment … . “[A] defendant, to have the protection of the exclusivity provision, must himself [or herself] have been acting within the scope of his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or intentional tort” … . Walsh v Knudsen, 2021 NY Slip Op 05607, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

DEFENDANT CAR DEALERSHIP OWNED THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF, ITS SALESMAN, WAS INJURED DURING A TEST DRIVE; THE DEALERSHIP, AS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW AND IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE AS THE OWNER OF THE CAR UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Paddock Chevrolet was immune from suit by its employee in this traffic accident case. Plaintiff, a salesman for Paddock, was a passenger in a car owned by Paddock which was being test-driven at the time of the accident. The court noted that the Workers’ Compensation Law protected Paddock from vicarious liability as the owner of the car pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 provides that “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed by [section 10] shall be exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever, to such employee, . . . or any person otherwise entitled to recover damages, contribution or indemnity, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death or liability arising therefrom . . .” We thus agree with Paddock that plaintiff’s claims against it are barred.

Paddock correctly contends that New York has rejected the “dual capacity” doctrine … , rendering it irrelevant whether the amended complaint and cross claims asserted against Paddock were based on its status as plaintiff’s employer or its status as the owner of the vehicle who is vicariously liable for the negligence of a nonemployee driver under Vehicle and Traffic Law … . Mansour v Paddock Chevrolet, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05190, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

/0 Comments/by

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE ITS OWN DETERMINATION TO APPORTION SOME OF CLAIMANT’S DISABILITY TO A 1976 INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined the Board did not have sufficient evidence to determine the extent to which a 1976 injury accounted for some of claimant’s disability:

We recognize that the Board’s medical guidelines “provide ‘useful criteria’ and the Board makes the ultimate determination of a claimant’s degree of disability, but that determination must be supported by substantial evidence” … . Moreover, “although the Board may reject medical evidence as incredible or insufficient, it may not fashion its own medical opinion” … . Here, there are no operative or pathological reports from any surgeries related to the 1976 injury in the record. Nor is there any medical evidence regarding the degree of disability, if any, that had resulted from the 1976 injury and/or surgery and the record reflects that claimant was fully employed with no restrictions at the time of the 2016 injury. Further, even assuming, without deciding, that an evaluation of the 1976 injury under the 1996 guidelines is appropriate for the purposes of determining whether that injury would have resulted in an SLU [schedule loss of use] award, there is no medical opinion that the 1976 injury would have resulted in an SLU award at the time of the injury or under the subsequently published 1996 guidelines. Matter of Hughes v Mid Hudson Psychiatric Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 04939, Third Dep 9-2-21

 

/by
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OR A CO-EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s “Workers’-Compensation-exclusive-recovery” defense should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was involved in a traffic accident driving defendant’s van, which plaintiff alleged was not properly maintained. Defendant unsuccessfully argued plaintiff was a special employee or a co-employee of defendant and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy was Workers’ Compensation:

“Generally, workers’ compensation benefits are the sole and exclusive remedy of an employee against an employer or co-employee for injuries sustained in the course of employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29[6] … ). “For purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, a person may be deemed to have more than one employer—a general employer and a special employer … . “A special employee is ‘one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another,’ and limited liability inures to the benefit of both the general and special employer” … . Many factors are weighed in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists, and generally no single one is decisive. Principal factors include who has the right to control the employee’s work, who is responsible for the payment of wages and the furnishing of equipment, who has the right to discharge the employee, and whether the work being performed was in furtherance of the special employer’s or the general employer’s business. The most significant factor is who controls and directs the manner, details, and ultimate result of the employee’s work” … . * * *

… [T]he evidence did not support a conclusion that a special employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the defendant … at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that the defendant was not a co-employee of the plaintiff at … the time of the accident. The defendant testified that prior to [the accident], he … began working for another car service company, and that, at the time of the accident, he was in Texas training for another employment opportunity. Chiloyan v Chiloyan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04696, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

/by

THE UNAVAILABILIITY OF PARKING FOR WORK REQUIRED THAT CLAIMANT CROSS A DANGEROUS ROAD TO GET TO HIS WORKPLACE; THE INJURIES SUFFERED WHEN CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WERE THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the unavailability of parking for work created a special hazard. Therefore claimant’s being struck by a vehicle while walking to his place of employment resulted in a compensable injury:

… [C]laimant, a food service worker at Montefiore-Nyack Hospital, sustained serious injuries when he was struck by a motor vehicle while walking towards the hospital entrance prior to the start of his work shift. * * *

… [T]he Board could reasonably determine that a special hazard existed due to the unavailability of parking along the eastern side of Route 9W, requiring claimant to, at a certain spot without a crosswalk, cross Route 9W — a dangerous public roadway — to access the loading dock entrance, which, significantly, was not used by the public and regularly used by claimant … . Further, based upon the regular use of the loading dock entrance by claimant and other food service workers, combined with the close proximity of the accident to the loading dock area, there was a close association of the access route with the premises, as far as going and coming are concerned, permitting the conclusion that the accident happened as an incident and risk of employment. Matter of Cadme v FOJP Serv. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04525, Third Dept 7-22-21

 

/by

CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER WHO WORKED AT A VEHICLE CHECKPOINT FOR TRAFFIC TO AND FROM GROUND ZERO AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS DESTROYED, PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEANUP WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 28; THEREFORE HIS CLAIM (BASED UPON TOXIN-RELATED INJURY) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant police officer did participate in the cleanup operations at ground zero and his claim should not have been disallowed as untimely pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law section 28. Claimant worked at a vehicle checkpoint for traffic to and from ground zero and alleged injury from toxins in the environment:

… [C]laimant worked at a vehicle checkpoint and he testified that he was assigned to control traffic at the intersection of West and Canal Streets from January 31, 2002 to February 6, 2002. Claimant further testified that his duties at the checkpoint included stopping traffic and clearing routes for emergency and construction vehicles travelling to and from ground zero. According to claimant, he assisted getting vehicles through the checkpoint, “[w]hether it was construction, whether it was [f]ire department [or] family members.” By providing such assistance, we find that claimant’s activities had a tangible connection to the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the WTC [World Trade Center] site … . As such, and in light of the liberal construction afforded this remedial statute, we conclude that the Board’s determination that Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A does not apply because claimant did not participate in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at ground zero is not supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, the claim should not have been disallowed as untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 … . Matter of Bodisch v New York State Police, 2021 NY Slip Op 03889, Third Dept 6-17-21

 

/by
,

SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: WHETHER PLAINTIFF PHARMACY COULD SEEK PAYMENT OF PRESCRIPTIONS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (WCB) HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court had jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action, even though the case involved whether plaintiff pharmacy was entitled to payment for prescriptions under the Workers’ Compensation Law, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB):

No party accepted responsibility for the payment of the outstanding prescription bills and the plaintiff commenced this action seeking … a judgment declaring that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not prohibit a pharmacy from seeking payment of a prescription bill from the responsible party in a plenary proceeding in a court of appropriate jurisdiction … . * * *

Pursuant to CPLR 3001, the Supreme Court “may render a declaratory judgment having the effect of a final judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. If the court declines to render such a judgment it shall state its grounds.”

The Court of Appeals has ruled that “primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board” [WCB]… . Thus, while the Supreme Court properly determined that the appropriate forum to resolve the issues raised in the complaint is the WCB, the WCB’s jurisdiction is primary and not exclusive. … [S]ince this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have denied the WCB defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction … . 21st Century Pharmacy v American Intl. Group, 2021 NY Slip Op 03820, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

/by

CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE CONSULTANTS WHOSE REPORTS WERE THE BASIS FOR THE DENIAL OF CLAIMANT’S REQUEST FOR SURGERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant should be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the consultants (Cash and Storrs) whose reports were the basis for the denial of claimant’s request for surgery:

The … request for surgery was not made until after the WCLJ [Workers’ Compensation Law Judge] ordered [the] depositions, but was nevertheless considered by the WCLJ, who upheld the denial even though claimant did not have any opportunity to submit contradictory medical evidence or cross-examine the carrier’s consultants. Matter of Ozoria v Advantage Mgt. Assn., 2021 NY Slip Op 03090, Third Dept 5-13-21

 

/by
,

THE 2009 AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW ALLOWED LUMP SUM PAYMENTS OF SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARDS; CLAIMANT DIED BEFORE THE SLU AWARD WAS MADE; CLAIMANT’S ESTATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LUMP SUM AWARD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurring opinion, determined that the 2009 amendments allowing lump sum schedule loss of use (SLU) awards did not entitle claimant’s estate to the lump sum award. The estate was entitled only to the portion of the award that would have been due to the claimant for the period prior to his death:

In December 2014, decedent claimant Norman Youngjohn sustained injuries when he slipped on ice and fell in a parking lot at work while employed by Berry Plastics Corporation. After decedent sought workers’ compensation benefits, a claim was established for injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow, and he was awarded temporary benefits. In September 2016, decedent notified the Workers’ Compensation Board that his injuries had become permanent, and the workers’ compensation insurance carrier (the Carrier) subsequently notified the Board that decedent’s injuries were amenable to a schedule loss of use (SLU) award (see generally Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3]). However, in March 2017, before resolution of his claim for permanent partial disability benefits, decedent suffered a fatal heart attack unassociated with his work-related injuries. * * *

The legislature’s 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b)—which provide that SLU awards may be “payable” in a lump sum upon request of the injured employee …—changed the allowable methods of payment for SLU awards. However, the Estate’s contention that these amendments implicitly provide a claimant’s estate a new entitlement to the value of an SLU award upon a claimant’s death, or otherwise direct that an SLU award “accrues” at that time for purposes of an estate’s recovery—issues that are distinct from the permissible methods of payment for such awards …—cannot be reconciled with the fact that the legislature did not amend Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4) (d) when it authorized lump sum payments. An estate’s entitlement to an SLU award upon a claimant’s death remains governed by Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4) (d), which was left untouched by the 2009 amendments. Matter of Estate of Youngjohn v Berry Plastics Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 02017, CtApp 4-1-21

 

/by
,

AN EMAIL INFORMING PLAINTIFF THAT DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WOULD NOT APPEAL THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPELLATE PANEL DID NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY TERMINATE THE FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION MATTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an email from the attorney defendants to the plaintiff did not unequivocally terminate the firm’s representation of plaintiff before the Workers’ Compensation Board:

Where, as here, defendants were retained in writing to represent plaintiff in all proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Board related to his claim, plaintiff made a sufficient showing of a continuing relationship with regard to that proceeding to support his contention of continuous representation … . Defendants’ statement in an email that they would not pursue an appeal to the Third Department after having lost before the Workers’ Compensation appellate panel on the issue of whether plaintiff was an employee, did not “unequivocally” terminate the representation in the workers’ compensation matter, which remained pending following the administrative review … . This is particularly true in light of the terms of the retainer agreement. Schwenger v Weitz, Kleinick & Weitz, LLP, 2021 NY Slip Op 01869, First Dept 3-25-21

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy