You are here: / Workers' Compensation
, ,

WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a question of fact whether the injured plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor (and therefore a question of fact whether the Workers’ Compensation was plaintiff’s exclusive remedy) must ruled on by the Workers’ Compensation Board before the courts can get involved:

Where the availability of workers’ compensation benefits “hinges upon questions of fact or upon mixed questions of fact and law, the parties may not choose the courts as the forum for resolution of the questions, but must look to the Workers’ Compensation Board for such determinations”… . “The question of whether a particular person is an employee within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law is usually a question of fact to be resolved by the Workers’ Compensation Board” … . Here, in light of the affidavit of the defendant’s employee, who stated that he trained the plaintiff, supervised the plaintiff closely, set the plaintiff’s hours on the days the plaintiff worked, and directed the plaintiff’s work, there is a question of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was the defendant’s employee on the date of the accident. Accordingly, because “there is a question of fact as to whether the plaintiff has a valid negligence cause of action against the defendant,” “[t]hat determination must be made in the first instance by the Workers’ Compensation Board …”. Findlater v Catering by Michael Schick, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07702, Second Dept 11-14-18

WORKERS” COMPENSATION (WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BECAUSE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THE ISSUE MUST FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, NOT THE COURTS (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the general contractor, Ultimate, was not liable under Labor Law 200 for plaintiff’s fall through an opening in planks and plywood covering a stairwell opening because the accident was attributable to the manner of the work and Ultimate did not exercise any supervisory control over the installation of drywall by the plaintiff. The dissent argued that there was a question of fact whether the opening in the stairwell covering was a dangerous condition of which Ultimate had notice, which is also a ground for liability under Labor Law 200. The Second Department noted that the court should not have sua sponte dismissed Ultimate’s cross claims against the drywall company (Fortin) because such relief was not requested. The Second Department further noted that Fortin was not entitled to protection from plaintiff’s suit under the Workers’ Compensation Law on the ground that plaintiff was Fortin’s employee because Fortin did not maintain a Workers’ Compensation policy:

“Labor Law § 200(1) is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work”… . “Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . Where “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … . …

… Ultimate established, … that the accident arose from the method and manner in which the plaintiff and Jean-Guy Fortin covered the stairwell opening … . …

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, sua sponte, directed dismissal of Ultimate’s cross claims against Fortin for common-law indemnification and contribution, which relief Fortin did not request in its motion papers… . Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Ultimate’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim against Fortin for common-law indemnification. Contrary to Fortin’s contention, Ultimate’s cross claims are not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. … Ultimate established that Fortin did not procure workers’ compensation on behalf of the plaintiff … . Therefore, Fortin is not entitled to the benefit of the workers’ compensation bar. Poulin v Ultimate Homes, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07468, Second Dept 11-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT)

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) action against his employer (a demolition company) was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff fell when the roof of the building collapsed. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the owner of the building was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the collapse of the roof was foreseeable:

In order for liability to be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1), there must be “a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard . . . , as defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the partial collapse of the roof and, in turn, the need for safety devices to protect the plaintiff from that hazard, were foreseeable … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was told that the roof collapsed because the beams from the third-floor ceiling had been cut constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Paguay v Cup of Tea, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06926, Second Dept 10-17-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION  (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))

,

INJURED POLICE OFFICER CAN RECEIVE BOTH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a police officer injured trying to subdue and emotionally disturbed person can receive both Workers' Compensation and General Municipal Law 207-c benefits. The police chief denied the General Municipal Law 207-c benefits. Supreme Court annulled the police chief's denial holding that the police chief was estopped from denying the benefits because Workers' Compensation benefits had been awarded.  The Second Department found that the estoppel doctrine did not apply but affirmed on different grounds:

… [T]he Workers' Compensation Board's determination in favor of the petitioner did not collaterally estop the Incorporated Village of Muttontown and the Chief of Police (hereinafter together the appellants) from denying the petitioner's application for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. “[A] determination by the Workers' Compensation Board that an injury is work-related” does not, “by operation of collateral estoppel, automatically entitle an injured employee to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits” … . “General Municipal Law 207-c benefits apply to a narrower class of work-related injury, relative to the performance of law enforcement duties” … .

A determination denying an application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c may be annulled only if it was arbitrary and capricious … . “An action is arbitrary and capricious when it is taken without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts” … .

In order to establish entitlement to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, a municipal employee must prove a “direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury”… . Here, the appellants' denial of the petitioner's application for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c was arbitrary and capricious. The documentation in the record established a causal connection between the performance of the petitioner's duties and her injuries. Matter of Lavin v Incorporated Vil. of Muttontown, 2018 NY Slip Op 06909, Second Dept 10-17-18

CLAIMANT-NURSE’S MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS WERE NOT COMPENSABLE AS THEY WERE NOT CAUSED BY GREATER THAN NORMAL STRESSORS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined claimant-nurse's mental health problems were not compensable because they were not deemed to have been caused by stress greater than that experienced in the normal work environment:

We find that substantial evidence supports the Board's factual determination that claimant's depressive condition was not compensable, as the work-related incidents and conditions that led to her mental injuries did not involve stressors that were “greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment” … . Claimant's supervisors described normal oversight and monitoring practices undertaken to assist her in correcting deficiencies in and improving her performance, and claimant failed to identify any unusual stressors or conduct that would constitute harassment or bullying as alleged in her claim for benefits. With regard to her job transfer, the testimony established that it was voluntary and, while it appears that the transition and organization of the new unit were somewhat chaotic and that her accommodations were not immediately communicated to her new supervisors, there was no credible evidence that the transfer was retaliatory or that she was knowingly denied accommodations. Further, claimant was never disciplined, reprimanded or singled out for unfair treatment, and the work evaluations and feedback were undertaken in a good faith. Matter of Lanese v Anthem Health Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 06845, Third Dept 10-11-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT-NURSE'S MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS WERE NOT COMPENSABLE AS THEY WERE NOT CAUSED BY GREATER THAN NORMAL STRESSORS (THIRD DEPT))

,

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that claimant, a tractor trailer driver, was an employee of Eaton's Trucking Service and a special employee of Quality Carrier, with which Eaton had entered a contract. Therefore the Workers' Compensation Board properly found Eaton and Quality were each responsible for 50% of the workers' compensation awards:

… [W]e find that substantial evidence supports the Board's factual determination that claimant was a special employee of Quality … . Looking at “the underlying facts of the parties' relationship” … , the evidence established that Eaton and Quality had an arrangement whereby Eaton's drivers, including claimant, hauled products exclusively for Quality's customers and did so in furtherance of Quality's business, and that Eaton operated under Quality's logo and license without which Eaton could not have conducted its hauling operation. Their arrangement was the type of arrangement in which the “employee and equipment of [the] general employer were necessarily used and temporarily assigned to work for th[e] business” of the special employer, which has been recognized as creating a special employment relationship … . While Quality did not control the day-to-day oversight of claimant, this is not dispositive as Eaton and claimant operated entirely under Quality's authority and pursuant to its policies. As a result, Quality had sufficient control over the “details and ultimate result” of claimant's work, and Quality's working relationship with claimant was “sufficient in kind and degree so that [Quality] may be deemed [to be his] employer” … . Matter of Mitchell v Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06839, Third Dept 10-11-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY FOUND CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A TRUCKING COMPANY AND A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY WITH WHICH THE TRUCKING COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT, THEREFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION AWARD WAS PROPERLY SPLIT BETWEEN THEM (THIRD DEPT))

,

SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that claimant's shoulder injury was not compensable because it did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. Claimant's injury occurred when she scanned her parking pass to enter a parking garage. The garage was not owned by her employer, but there were spaces reserved for employees and the employer paid for parking. The majority found sufficient evidence to support the Board's ruling. But the dissenters argued this was not a case which required weighing conflicting evidence, therefore precedent allowing recovery for injuries in employee parking areas should control:

In concluding that claimant's injury was not compensable, the Board found that the parking garage was utilized by members of the public, as well as other businesses located within the same building as the employer. The Board further noted that the employer did not own or maintain the garage. These facts, which the Board credited, lead to the conclusion that the employer did not extend its premises to the area where claimant's injury occurred … . Although facts exist that would support a contrary result, given that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we discern no basis to disturb it … .

From the dissent: We respectfully dissent. The proper disposition of this case is not based upon our substantial evidence standard of review, as this is not a case where the Workers' Compensation Board was weighing and balancing conflicting evidence. There was no relevant conflicting evidence. The location and circumstances of the underlying event are not disputed; claimant does not challenge the factual findings, but instead addresses the appeal solely to the resulting legal determination. In this case, the Board was required to apply the policy established by precedent to the relevant undisputed facts. As the Board failed to properly apply this precedent in rendering the determination, we would reverse, based upon the law. Matter of Grover v State Ins. Fund, 2018 NY Slip Op 06601, Third Dept 10-4-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))/PARKING GARAGES (WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW, (SHOULDER INJURY WHICH OCCURRED WHEN CLAIMANT SCANNED HER PARKING PASS TO ENTER A PARKING GARAGE USED BY EMPLOYEES WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT))

NO SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) BENEFITS CALCULATED BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE KNEE AND ANKLE SEPARATELY, AS OPPOSED A CALCULATION BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE LEG AS A WHOLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was not entitled to schedule loss of use (SLU) benefits calculated on loss of use of his knee and ankle, as opposed to SLU calculated on loss of use of his leg generally:

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) sets forth SLU awards that the Board may make resulting from permanent injuries to certain body parts, losses of hearing or vision and facial disfigurements. This Court has observed that such awards are not given for particular injuries, but rather “for the residual physical and functional impairments” … . Consistent with this observation, neither the statute nor the Board's guidelines lists the ankle or the knee as body parts lending themselves to separate SLU awards. Rather, impairments to these extremities are encompassed by awards for the loss of use of the leg … . ​Matter of Genduso v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 05981, Third Dept 9-6-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (NO SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) BENEFITS CALCULATED BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE KNEE AND ANKLE SEPARATELY, AS OPPOSED A CALCULATION BASED UPON THE LOSS OF USE OF THE LEG AS A WHOLE (THIRD DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who worked for Manpower Group and was injured on property owned by Crystal Springs, was not able to sue Crystal Springs. Plaintiff was deemed to be a special employee of Crystal Springs and his only remedy was Workers' Compensation:

Pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6), an employee who is entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer based on injuries sustained by the employee. “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”… . “The receipt of Workers' Compensation benefits from a general employer precludes an employee from commencing a negligence action against a special employer” … .

“A special employee is one who is transferred for a limited time of whatever duration to the service of another'”… . ” [A] person's categorization as a special employee is usually a question of fact'” … “However, the 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'” … . ” 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.'”  James v Crystal Springs Water, 2018 NY Slip Op 05756, Second Dept 8-15-18

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, WORKERS' COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (WORKERS' COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS' COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT))

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF BOTH TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS AND TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the workers’ compensation carrier was entitled to reimbursement of both the temporary total disability and temporary partial disability payments in the years preceding the schedule loss of use (SLU) award by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. Claimant argued that, based on the wording of the statute, the carrier was entitled to only the temporary partial disability payments:

… [W]hile it is true that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (4-a) “expressly provides for . . . an offset in the case of an award for [a] temporary total disability [that] is not protracted” and that no corresponding language appears in Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5), which addresses temporary partial disability awards… , this Court consistently has held that “the schedule award is not allocable to any particular period of disability” … . …

As we discern no basis upon which to treat the carrier’s temporary total disability payments and temporary partial disability payments to claimant in a disparate fashion… , and in order to avoid what otherwise would be a significant windfall to claimant, we find that the Board’s decision — holding that “the carrier may take [a] credit for all prior [disability] payments” — to be supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Robinson v Workmen’s Circle Home, 2018 NY Slip Op 05652, Third Dept 8-2-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF BOTH TEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS AND TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY PAYMENTS (THIRD 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