You are here: / Workers' Compensation

INJURY CAUSED BY THE INHALATION OF ASPERGILLUS FUNGUS PROPERLY DEEMED A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENTAL INJURY ENTITLING CLAIMANT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined injury from the inhalation of aspergillus fungus was properly classified as an accidental injury entitling claimant to workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant was exposed to the fungus at work and suffers from allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis:

“To be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an accidental injury must arise both out of and in the course of employment” … . “Notably, this is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . “To establish an accidental work-related condition that developed over time, rather than from a sudden event, [a] claimant [is] required to demonstrate by competent medical evidence that his or her condition resulted from unusual environmental conditions or events assignable to something extraordinary” … . “[T]he concept of time-definiteness required of an accident can be thought of as applying to either the cause or the result, . . . and it is not decisive that a claimant is unable to pinpoint the exact date on which the incident occurred” … . Matter of Connolly v Covanta Energy Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 04244, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

, ,

THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFIT RECEIVED BY CLAIMANT DURING PARTICIPATION IN A WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM (WEP) CONSTITUTED WAGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ON THE JOB INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a matter of first impression, determined that the public assistance benefit received by claimant when he participated in the work experience program (WEP) constituted wages for the purpose of calculation the workers’ compensation benefit for injury on the job:

Wages are defined as “the money rate at which the service rendered is recompensed under the contract of hiring in force at the time of the accident” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 [9]). A recipient of public assistance may be required to participate in work activities, including work experience in the public sector (see Social Services Law §§ 331, 336 [1] [d]) … . The amount of assistance that a participant in a WEP receives is not determined by the number of hours worked; rather, the number of hours that a recipient of public assistance is required to participate in a WEP is determined by dividing the amount of assistance received by the higher of the federal or state minimum wage (see Social Services Law § 336-c [2] [b]). Significantly, the benefits of a recipient who fails to participate in a required WEP without good cause are subject to reduction or forfeiture (see Social Services Law § 342). The fact that recipients of public assistance must participate in a WEP to receive benefits without reduction means that the public assistance paid to WEP participants directly serves as compensation for the work performed … . Accordingly, we conclude that public assistance benefits paid to WEP participants are wages as defined in the Workers’ Compensation Law. We note that our conclusion is consistent with the Court of Appeals’ observation that that the “rate and method of payment of WEP workers” is determined by the Social Services Law … . Matter of Covert v Niagara County, 2019 NY Slip Op 03870, Third Dept 5-16-19

 

COUNTY JAIL CORRECTIONS OFFICER ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR PTSD AND DEPRESSION RESULTING FROM AN INMATE’S SPITTING ON HIM AND THREATENING TO KILL HIS FAMILY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s appeal was rendered moot because the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded its prior rulings and found claimant, a county jail corrections officer, could recover for PTSD and depression resulting from an inmate’s spitting on him (saliva exposure) and threatening to kill claimant’s family:

… [T]he Board panel …found … that claimant did not sustain a physical injury within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) and, further, that the recent amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (3) (b) did not apply to claimant; hence, claimant was “required to demonstrate that the stress encountered was greater than that which occurred in the normal work environment of a correction[] officer” … . On that latter point, the Board panel credited claimant’s testimony that the inmate in question “was more dangerous than the average inmate” and that “exposure to bodily fluids . . . was not a regular occurrence for [claimant] at work” … . Accordingly, the Board panel found that claimant experienced stress greater than similarly situated correction officers, that “establishment of the claim for . . . psychological conditions [was] supported by the credible evidence in the record” and that “the claim [was] properly amended to include PTSD, major depressive disorder[] and panic disorder’ … . Matter of Carey v Westchester County Dept. of Corr., 2019 NY Slip Op 03116, Third Dept 4-25-19

 

CLAIMANT, A SUBWAY CLEANER, WAS ASSAULTED AFTER GETTING OFF THE SUBWAY ON HIS WAY HOME, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES WERE NOT COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a third-party assault on claimant, a subway cleaner, after claimant had clocked out of work and traveled some distance on the subway to get home, was not compensable:

According to claimant, he finished his shift at 7:50 a.m., 10 minutes early, and clocked out, as he was permitted to do to compensate for coming in early. He left his assigned work train station and traveled on a train six stops on his way home, and was assaulted as he exited the train at approximately 7:55 a.m. Accordingly, at the time of the assault, claimant was not at his assigned train station, having clocked out of work, he was not on duty or performing any of the duties of his employment, and he was not on an errand for the employer … . Rather, claimant was commuting home, “using the subways like the general public” … . There is no evidence that claimant was required to use the trains to commute to work or that the employer benefited from the route that he used to travel home. …

Although injuries resulting from work-related assaults are compensable under certain circumstances, given that the incident occurred six train stops away from claimant’s assigned station, after he had completed his shift, and that he was not performing any services for the employer on his commute home, the record supports the Board’s determination that there was no nexus between the motivation for the assault and claimant’s employment … . Matter of Warner v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 03122, Third Dept 4-25-19

 

BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT FRAUDULENTLY EXAGGERATED THE EFFECTS OF HIS INJURIES NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BOARD’S DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the finding that claimant fraudulently exaggerated the effects of his injuries was not supported by the record. The Board’s rulings were based upon claimant’s answering calls as a volunteer firefighter and some video surveillance footage. But there was no evidence of what activities claimant engaged in as a volunteer firefighter, and the video evidence was deemed to have been mischaracterized by the Board:

Regarding the video surveillance at a personal injury accident, the Board found that claimant exhibited no apparent difficulty or disability. In the video surveillance, claimant is observed walking around the accident scene; which is not inconsistent with his reports of injury given that he did not need an assistive device to walk but, as noted in his medical records, could walk independently with a mild antalgic gait. Furthermore, any conclusion by the Board that claimant’s movements of his neck, arms and back were inconsistent with his loss of range of motion were not supported by any medical testimony at the hearing and amount to speculation as to whether such movements were inconsistent with the degree of range of motion noted in his medical records. Again, claimant was not in need of any assistive device for his injuries and the degree to which claimant moved his neck, arm and back in the video surveillance, and whether it was inconsistent with his medical records, could not be ascertained without additional medical testimony. …

We also find that the Board mischaracterized the video surveillance depicting claimant “walking into a grocery store . . . and then bending fully at the waist to retrieve a loaf of bread.” Although claimant maintained that his daily living activities had been affected by his injuries, the video did not clearly reflect any heavy lifting or repetitive motion inconsistent with his complaints of pain. Significantly, claimant was deemed totally disabled from performing his job duties as a laborer, but not totally disabled from all activities. It is also noted that the addendum submitted … is factually inaccurate as it incorrectly indicates that claimant is seen “carrying packages” at the grocery store, but the video depicts claimant carrying only a loaf of bread. Matter of Persons v Halmar Intl., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02760, Third Dept 4-11-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defenses alleging it was an alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and plaintiff was its special employee, thereby insulating defendant from anything other than liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law, should have been dismissed. Summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was on moved for no apparent reason. The fact that plaintiff apparently told a co-worker that he set the ladder on a drop cloth merely raised a question of his contributory negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) action:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks” … . The sole proximate cause defense applies where the plaintiff, acting as a “recalcitrant worker,” misused an otherwise proper safety device, chose to use an inadequate safety device when proper devices were readily available, or failed to use any device when proper devices were available … . Contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to  … judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s coworker implying that, after the accident, the plaintiff might have told the coworker that the plaintiff had set the ladder up on top of a drop cloth, even if true, would render the plaintiff only contributorily negligent, a defense not available under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02370, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

EMPLOYEE’S ESTATE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD THAT ACCRUED UP UNTIL THE EMPLOYEE’S DEATH, NOT THE ENTIRE SLU AWARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that the employee’s estate was entitled to the portion of the schedule loss of use (SLU) award that had accrued up until the time of the employee’s death:

In our view, the 2009 statutory amendments did not alter the longstanding rule that, where an injured employee dies without leaving a surviving spouse, child under 18 years old or dependent, only that portion of the employee’s SLU award that had accrued at the time of the death is payable to the estate, along with reasonable funeral expenses… . Nor did, as claimant contends, the amendments alter the rate at which an SLU award accrues to an injured employee who is posthumously awarded SLU benefits. Absent clear statutory language or an indication of statutory intent, we cannot conclude that, in granting the option of a lump-sum payment, the Legislature intended for the employee’s estate to collect any portion of the posthumous SLU award that had not accrued prior to death. Accordingly, claimant was not entitled to the entirety of decedent’s SLU award. Matter of Estate of Youngjohn v Berry Plastics Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01290, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

, ,

COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ISSUE, REVIEW OF AN AGENCY DETERMINATION MUST BE BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Court of Claims did not have subject matter jurisdiction over review of an agency determination, which must be brought as an Article 78 action:

At issue is whether the Court of Claims has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. While claimant seeks significant financial relief, the core of its claim challenges defendant’s determination to classify the therapists as employees for purposes of calculating the premium due under the workers’ compensation policy. This is a threshold agency determination that the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address … . … Such agency determinations are subject to review in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, where a successful petitioner would be entitled to recover an overpayment as incidental relief (see CPLR 7806 … ). As such, claimant’s application should have been denied. Family & Educ. Consultants, LLC v New York State Ins. Fund, 2019 NY Slip Op 01273, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

CLAIMANT’S MATTER WAS FULLY CLOSED AND WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND FOR REOPENED CASES, DESPITE CONTINUING PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant’s matter had been fully closed and was properly transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, despite continuing payments for medical care and treatment:

There is no dispute that the statutory time periods set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a were satisfied; claimant was injured in September 2005 and the last payment of compensation was made in October 2006. Accordingly, the sole issue is whether the Board’s finding of a true closure in this matter is supported by substantial evidence. In this regard, “compensation” is defined as “the money allowance payable to an employee or to his [or her] dependents”… . As this Court previously has held, such allowance “does not include payments for medical treatment or care” …  Further, “the payment for continuing medical care does not bar the transfer of liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a”… , and neither the potential liability for future treatment nor the possibility that claimant’s condition could deteriorate — resulting in the subsequent reopening of the case — “mean[s] that the matter was not fully closed” … . Matter of Guillen v Tulley Constr., 2019 NY Slip Op 00945, Third Dept 2-7-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE WHEN INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant demonstrated plaintiff was its special employee. Therefore plaintiff’s sole remedy for his on the job injury is workers’ compensation:

It is well settled that “a general employee of one employer may also be in the special employ of another, notwithstanding the general employer’s responsibility for payment of wages and for maintaining workers’ compensation and other employee benefits” … . “[A] person’s categorization as a special employee is usually a question of fact”; however, a “determination of special employment status may be made as a matter of law where the particular, undisputed critical facts compel that conclusion and present no triable issue of fact” … . Here, defendant demonstrated that it exercised “complete and exclusive control over the manner, details and ultimate results of plaintiff’s work” … ; that Remedy [plaintiff’s usual employer] “was not present at the job site and had no right to direct, supervise or control plaintiff’s work’’ … ; that defendant provided plaintiff with all the training and materials necessary for plaintiff to perform his job … ; and that defendant “had the authority to fire plaintiff with respect to his employment at its job site” … . Ferguson v National Gypsum Servs. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 00709, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

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