You are here: / Workers' Compensation

PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant Mid-Queens demonstrated that plaintiff maintenance worker, although employed by KGA, was a special employee of Mid-Queens. Therefore plaintiff’s only remedy for his injury was Workers’ Compensation:

“Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) restrict an employee from suing his or her employer or coemployee for an accidental injury sustained in the course of employment” … . “[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” … . “Although no one factor is determinative, a significant and weighty feature in deciding whether a special employment relationship exists is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee’s work—in other words, who determines all essential, locational and commonly recognizable components of the [employee’s] work relationship” … . “Other factors include 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” … .

Here, the moving defendants made a prima facie showing that Mid-Queens was entitled to summary judgment on the ground that it was the injured plaintiff’s special employer. The evidence submitted by the moving defendants established that Mid-Queens controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the injured plaintiff’s work, the injured plaintiff’s work was done in furtherance of Mid-Queens’ business, and Mid-Queens had the right to discharge the injured plaintiff … . Spasic v Cammeby’s Mgt. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 05616, Second Dept 8-1-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL EMPLOYEE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT))

NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that a new provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which directly related to claimant police officer’s disability claim (anxiety and phobias related to the sight of blood), was intended to take effect immediately and should have been applied by the Board. The Board had denied the claim finding that the sight of blood is a usual occurrence in police work:

In September 2016, claimant applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review, which the carrier opposed. On April 10, 2017, while that application was pending, Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 (3) (b) was materially amended, effective immediately. The amendment provided that, as relevant here, “[w]here a police officer . . . files a claim for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred in a work-related emergency, the [B]oard may not disallow the claim, upon a factual finding that the stress was not greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment” … . …

In our view, by directing that the apparent substantive change in the law was to take effect immediately, “the Legislature clearly indicated that th[is] amendment[ is] to be viewed as remedial, designed to correct imperfections in prior law, by giving relief to [an] aggrieved party”… . Moreover, as a general rule, “the law as it exists at the time a decision is rendered on appeal is controlling”… . Consequently, we find that, under these circumstances, the Board was bound to apply the law as it existed at the time it was considering and determining the reconsideration and/or review application, notwithstanding the parties’ apparent failure to make supplemental arguments in submissions to the Board addressing this change in the law. Matter of McMillan v Town of New Castle, 2018 NY Slip Op 04801, Third Dept 6-28-18

WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))/POLICE OFFICERS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))/BLOOD (ANXIETY RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD, POLICE OFFICERS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))/ANXIETY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, ANXIETY RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD, POLICE OFFICERS, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT))

A CLAIMANT MAY NOT RECEIVE BOTH A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD AND A NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY AWARD FOR INJURIES FROM THE SAME ACCIDENT, BUT BOTH INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant cannot receive both a schedule loss of use (SLU) award and a nonschedule permanent partial disability award for injuries stemming from the same accident, but both classifications of injury can be considered in determining loss of wage-earning capacity:

The amount of an SLU award is based upon the body member that was injured and the degree of impairment sustained; it is not allocable to any particular period of disability and is independent of any time that the claimant might lose from work . By contrast, compensation for a permanent partial disability that arises from a nonschedule injury, i.e., an injury to a body member not specifically enumerated in [Workers’ Compensation Law 15 (3)], is based on a factual determination of the effect that the disability has on the claimant’s future wage-earning capacity (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [w]).

A claimant who sustains both schedule and nonschedule injuries in the same accident may receive only one initial award … , because an SLU award and an award made for permanent partial disabilities are both intended to compensate a claimant for loss of wage-earning capacity sustained in a work-related accident and concurrent payment of an award for a schedule loss and an award for a nonschedule permanent partial disability for injuries arising out of the same work-related accident would amount to duplicative compensation … . Nevertheless, all impairments sustained by a claimant, whether resulting from schedule or nonschedule injuries, must be considered in determining lost wage-earning capacity attributable to a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification … . However, in the unique circumstance where no initial award is made based on a nonschedule permanent partial disability classification, a claimant is entitled to an SLU award … . Matter of Taher v Yiota Taxi, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04414, Third Dept 6-14-18

​WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (A CLAIMANT MAY NOT RECEIVE BOTH A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD AND A NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY AWARD FOR INJURIES FROM THE SAME ACCIDENT, BUT BOTH INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY (THIRD DEPT))/SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, A CLAIMANT MAY NOT RECEIVE BOTH A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD AND A NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY AWARD FOR INJURIES FROM THE SAME ACCIDENT, BUT BOTH INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY (THIRD DEPT))/NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, A CLAIMANT MAY NOT RECEIVE BOTH A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD AND A NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY AWARD FOR INJURIES FROM THE SAME ACCIDENT, BUT BOTH INJURY CLASSIFICATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY (THIRD DEPT))

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department explained the difference between a schedule loss of use and a nonschedule permanent partial disability:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) contains a schedule of awards for a permanent partial disability resulting from a loss of specific body parts or functions, such as vision and hearing (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 [3] [a]-[v]). Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) pertains to “all other cases of permanent partial disability” — i.e., those cases that are not amenable to a schedule award. Whether a schedule loss of use award or a nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification is appropriate constitutes a question of fact for the Board’s resolution, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . A nonschedulable permanent partial disability classification, rather than a schedule loss of use award, “is indicated where there is a continuing condition of pain or continuing need for medical treatment or the medical condition remains unsettled” … . …

… [S]ubstantial evidence, in the form of the medical evidence that claimant suffers from RSD/CRPS, a chronic continuing pain of the face and the opinion that the ptosis of the eyebrow is worsening, supports the Board’s determination that an award of a nonschedulable permanent partial disability pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w), rather than a schedule loss of use award, is appropriate … . Matter of Tobin v Finger Lakes DDSO, 2018 NY Slip Op 04413, Third Dept 6-14-18

​WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, CLAIMANT WITH A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY WHO HAS INVOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN FROM THE LABOR MARKET NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE A CONTINUED ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a recent amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law applied retroactively and was properly applied to claimant’s case. The amendment provides that a worker who has involuntarily withdrawn from the labor market with a permanent partial disability need not demonstrate a continued attachment to the labor market:

… [T]he Board panel … issued an amended decision finding that claimant was not required to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market based upon a recent amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) … . That amendment states, in relevant part, that in cases such as claimant’s, “compensation . . . shall be payable during the continuance of such permanent partial disability, without the necessity for the claimant who is entitled to benefits at the time of classification to demonstrate ongoing attachment to the labor market” … ….

… [W]e find that the amendment is applicable here and relieves claimant from the need to demonstrate a continued attachment to the labor market. Although it is generally preferable to construe a statute in a prospective manner, a retroactive application is warranted if the statutory language expressly or by necessary implication so provides … . Matter of O’Donnell v Erie County, 2018 NY Slip Op 04410, Third Dept 6-14-18

​WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, CLAIMANT WITH A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY WHO HAS INVOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN FROM THE LABOR MARKET NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE A CONTINUED ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET (THIRD DEPT))

,

BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT, DENIAL OF CLAIM REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the claimant (wife of the decedent worker who died of cardiac arrest) was not notified the board would consider a medical file relating to a prior injury:

Here, the Board relied on medical records apparently contained in the case file for a separate claim filed by decedent based on a November 2014 fall at work. … The employer did not request that the Board rely on those 2014 records, nor did it adhere to the procedure for introducing additional evidence into the administrative appeal that was not before the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge… . The Board’s rule provides that, if that procedure is not followed, the Board “will not” consider such new evidence… .

Claimant was prejudiced because she was not on notice — until she received the Board decision — that the Board would rely on documents from another case file. The employer argues that the referenced medical reports cannot be objectionable because they accurately reflect the treatment rendered, but we cannot verify that without reviewing those reports. The employer further argues that no response to the medical records would change the strength of either side’s argument, but that proposition is mere speculation. Either party may have chosen to submit additional medical records reflecting on decedent’s medical treatment from November 2014 until his death in July 2015 had the parties been on notice that this period of treatment would be at issue. Matter of Kaplan v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04068, Third Dept 6-7-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT, DENIAL OF CLAIM REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, BOARD CONSIDERED MEDICAL FILE FROM A PRIOR INJURY WITHOUT NOTICE TO CLAIMANT, DENIAL OF CLAIM REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

CLAIMANT WAS ASSAULTED ON TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROPERTY WHILE WEARING HER TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNIFORM, ALTHOUGH SHE WAS COMMUTING TO WORK, HER COMMUTE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER WORK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, who worked for the NYC Transit Authority, was not entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits for injuries suffered in an assault on the way to work. Although she was wearing her uniform and was on Transit Authority property when she was assaulted, her commute to her work station was deemed to have no connection to her work for the Transit Authority:

“An injury is only compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law if it arose out of and in the course of a worker’s employment and, in general, injuries sustained in the course of travel to and from the place of employment do not come within the statute” … . Injuries incurred while commuting to work are generally not covered because “the risks inherent in traveling to and from work relate to the employment only in the most marginal sense” … . There are recognized exceptions but, here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant’s injuries sustained while commuting are not compensable, as none of the relevant exceptions to this rule applies … .

According to claimant, the assault occurred almost an hour before the start of her shift, on her way to work, before signing in at her assigned station as required at the start of her shift. The employer neither encouraged nor benefitted from her commute route. Thus, at the time of the assault, claimant was not yet on duty or at her assigned station and was not performing any duties of her employment or undertaking an errand for the employer … . Although claimant had opted to wear her work uniform on her commute, she was not required to do so, nor was she required to use public transportation to get to work. The employer provided a transportation pass, but there was no evidence that it was contractually bound to provide free transit, and the use of the pass did not make claimant’s commute a part of her employment… . Rather, at the relevant time, claimant was a commuter using the subways like the general public and, while she was on property owned and operated by the employer, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that this did not establish a casual connection between her employment and the assault … . Matter of Rodriguez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03887, Third Dept 5-31-18

​WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (CLAIMANT WAS ASSAULTED ON TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROPERTY WHILE WEARING HER TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNIFORM, ALTHOUGH SHE WAS COMMUTING TO WORK, HER COMMUTE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER WORK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/COMMUTE (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, CLAIMANT WAS ASSAULTED ON TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROPERTY WHILE WEARING HER TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNIFORM, ALTHOUGH SHE WAS COMMUTING TO WORK, HER COMMUTE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER WORK, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the relation-back doctrine did not apply to the attempts to amend the complaint in this Worker’s Compensation trust action. The trust was formed as self-insurance for Workers’ Compensation claims, but was determined to owe the Workers’ Compensation Board $220 million. The decision is too complex to fairly summarize here.  It comprehensively addresses the criteria for amending complaints, the relation-back doctrine, the General Business Law section 350 cause of action, and the corporate alter ego (piercing the corporate veil) pleading requirements:

“[T]he rule on a motion for leave to amend a pleading is that the movant need not establish the merits of the proposed amendment and, in the absence of prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, such applications are to be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit” … . A claim is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit where it would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. …

Where the issue is whether a claim may be interposed against a defendant who was named as a party before the statute of limitations expired, the query is limited to whether the earlier complaint “gave notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading” … . …

“The relation back doctrine permits a [plaintiff] to amend a [complaint] to add a [defendant] even though the statute of limitations has expired at the time of amendment so long as the [plaintiff] can demonstrate three things: (1) that the claims arose out of the same occurrence, (2) that the later-added [defendant] is united in interest with a previously named [defendant], and (3) that the later-added [defendant] knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by [plaintiff] as to the later-added [defendant’s] identity, the [action] would have also been brought against him or her” … . …

The corporate veil will be pierced and liability imposed when either (1) there is complete domination of a corporation by an individual or another corporation with respect to the transaction being attacked that resulted in a fraud or wrong against the complaining party, or (2) “when a corporation has been so dominated by an individual or another corporation and its separate entity so ignored that it primarily transacts the dominator’s business instead of its own and can be called the other’s alter ego” … . Here, the proposed complaint alleges only that [the two entities] had common owners, officers and directors and that they shared the same office space, addresses and telephone numbers. Such allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to plead the elements required to establish alter ego liability … . Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03196, Third Dept 5-3-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINTS, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION TRUST DEEMED TO OWE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD $220 MILLION, ATTEMPTS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD CAUSES OF ACTION AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN FAILED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, CRITERIA FOR A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 35O CAUSE OF ACTION AND PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (PLEADING, ALTER EGO, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTER EGO (CORPORATION LAW, CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/CORPORATE VEIL, PIERCING (PLEADING,  CRITERIA FOR PLEADING AN ALTER EGO THEORY ADDRESSED (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 (PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 350 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant property owner was the alto ego of plaintiff’s employer (Fox Run) and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy for his on the job injury was under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff worked on a farm and was injured when he fell from a hayloft:

… [W]e conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that it was the alter ego of Fox Run. Defendant and Fox Run were single-member-owned LLCs that were created on the same day “for a single purpose[,] to operate a horse stable business” … . Both defendant and Fox Run had the same individual owner … , and shared the same insurance policy … . Defendant had “[n]o separate set of [financial] books” and “no separate accounting or tax reporting”… .

In addition, defendant had no employees … and “was formed solely for the purpose of owning the premises upon which plaintiff’s employer . . . operate[d]” its horse farm … . Fox Run leased property from no one other than defendant, there was no written lease agreement, and Fox Run did not pay any rent to defendant … . Finally, Fox Run’s owner paid defendant’s property taxes as well as the operating expenses of the property … . Buchwald v 1307 Porterville Rd., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03006, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the defendant was the alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and therefore plaintiff’s only remedy for the on the job injury was under the Workers’ Compensation Law:

Generally, employees injured in the course of their employment may recover against their employers only under the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6) expressly provides that “[t]he right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee” … . The exclusive remedy provisions also bar employees from seeking damages from “alter egos” of their employers … .. The alter ego rule applies when one of the entities in question controls the other or when the two entities operate as a single integrated entity … . A mere showing that the entities are related—by, for example, sharing officers or ownership—is insufficient… .

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff’s employer by submitting evidence that, among other things, in addition to owning the premises, it was the sole owner and manager of the limited liability company that was the plaintiff’s employer, that the plaintiff’s employer was formed to provide bus drivers for the defendant’s pupil transportation business, and that the two entities shared the same Workers’ Compensation insurance policy … . Clarke v First Student, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02766, Second Dept 4-25-18

​WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER,THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, ALTER EGO, DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER,THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (SECOND DEPT))/ALTER EGO  (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, DEFENDANT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER,THEREFORE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB (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