The Third Department determined substantial evidence supported the conclusion decedent-worker's heart attack was employment-related. Decedent suffered the heart attack while walking to a storage structure in freezing temperatures:

[T]he testimony and evidence in the record demonstrates that shortly before decedent collapsed, he was instructed to add insulation in an attempt to fix the frozen valve and, to do so, traveled outside at night across snow-covered ground in freezing temperatures to locate and retrieve additional insulation from a storage structure located at least 500 feet away. In addition, Thomas Martin, the lead process operator, explained in his testimony that if decedent and his colleague were unable to quickly fix the frozen valve that evening, the glycol treatment facility at the airport would have “shut[] down.” Based upon the foregoing, Raymond Basri, a doctor specializing in internal medicine with 25 years of experience in diagnostic cardiology who reviewed decedent's medical records, opined that decedent's work activities immediately prior to his collapse, in combination with the environmental conditions at that time and the physical and emotional stress associated with having to assist with the timely repair of the frozen valve, were significant contributing factors to decedent's acute myocardial infarction and resulting death. Matter of Kilcullen v AfFCO/Avports Mgt. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03033, 3rd Dept 4-21-16

The Third Department determined there was insufficient evidence to support claimant's allegation he was injured in an accident which no one witnesses and for which claimant did not seek immediate attention medical attention. The court noted that the presumption that unwitnessed accidents arose from employment did not create a presumption that an accident had happened:

… Workers' Compensation Law § 21, “which affords a presumption that an unwitnessed or unexplained workplace accident arose out of the injured person's employment, . . . cannot be utilized to demonstrate that an accident occurred in the first place”… . Matter of Siennikov v Professional Grade Constr., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01889, 3rd Dept 3-17-16

WORKERS' COMPENSATION (STATUTORY PRESUMPTION INJURY AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID NOT CREATED A PRESUMPTION THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED)

The Third Department determined claimant was properly awarded workers’ compensation benefits for work-related stress. The employer argued the stress was related to warning letters about claimant’s performance, which would not be compensable. One of the warning letters was deemed not to have been issued in good faith. And claimant submitted proof her stress-related symptoms appeared before the warning letters were issued. Claimant was a licensed clinical social worker who had been attacked by a client:

 

Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) precludes claims for mental injuries based upon work-related stress “if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer.” “Whether the employer’s actions constituted a lawful personnel decision undertaken in good faith is a factual issue to be resolved by the Board”  … . * * *

“According deference to the Board’s resolution of witness credibility issues” … , and in light of the evidence that claimant suffers from a mental injury stemming from work-related stress and that she was being treated for the condition prior to the issuance of the warning letters, the Board’s determination that the claim was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (7) is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed … . Further, based upon the foregoing, we find that the Board’s determination that the stress that caused claimant’s injury was greater than that of other similarly situated workers also is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Haynes (Catholic Charities), 2016 NY Slip Op 00560, 3rd Dept 1-28-16

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (AWARD FOR WORK-RELATED STRESS PROPER)/STRESS, WORK-RELATED (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS PROPERLY AWARDED)

The Third Department determined the claimant’s failure to provide timely notice of the accident did not bar his claim:

Failure to provide timely written notice of an accident to an employer pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 18 generally bars the claim “unless the Board excuses that failure on the ground that notice could not be given, the employer or its agent had knowledge of the accident, or the employer was not prejudiced” … . Here, although claimant did not provide written notice of the January 2, 2012 accident to the employer, he filed his claim for benefits based upon that accident with the Workers’ Compensation Board on January 31, 2012. On February 6, 2012, the Board provided its Notice of Case Assembly to the employer, which informed the employer of the claim, the date of the accident and that claimant was alleging injuries to his head, neck and back. Notably, the record reflects that claimant received prompt medical attention, including MRIs of his lumbar and cervical spine in February 2012. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Board that the short delay between the expiration of the 30-day notice period and the employer receiving notice of the claim did not prejudice the employer so as to prevent it from properly investigating the claim … . Matter of Lopadchak v R.W. Express LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 08490, 3rd Dept 11-19-15