The Third Department determined that a slip and fall in an employee parking area can be compensable under Workers’ Compensation.  The Board’s finding that the injury was compensable in this case was affirmed:

As a general rule, “accidents that occur in public areas away from the workplace and outside of work hours are not compensable” … .  However, “by making arrangements for employee parking, [an employer] may be found to have extended its premises to the area of the approved parking facility so that an accident that occurs therein may be found to have arisen within the precincts of the claimant’s employment, rendering it compensable.  This is particularly true where the claimant is injured on the way to work and in such physical proximity to his or her worksite as to establish a relationship between the accident and the employment”… .

Here, claimant testified that following the approval of her application to park in the subject lot, she was given a hang tag to display in her vehicle’s window and a parking fee was deducted from her biweekly paycheck … .  Although a portion of the parking lot occasionally was set aside for vendors participating in events at the nearby Times Union Center, the lot was not – to the best of claimant’s knowledge – open to the public during the work week.  Finally, claimant described the route traveled from the surface lot to her building and testified that “[e]veryone” who parked in the vicinity of the lot “usually [took the] same route into [the employer’s] building”… .  Matter of Stratton v NYS Comptroller…, 514766, 3rd Dept 12-12-13

The Third Department affirmed the determination that claimant’s stroke was not work-related:

Inasmuch as it is undisputed that claimant’s stroke occurred while he was at work, he was entitled to the statutory presumption that his stroke arose out of and in the course of his employment (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 21… ). The employer, however, may rebut that presumption with substantial evidence to the contrary … . Here, the employer’s medical expert opined that claimant’s stroke was not related to his employment, but was directly related to certain preexisting conditions, including cerebral vascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and a prior transient ischemic attack, which combined to put claimant “at extreme risk for a stroke.”Claimant’s medical expert, although unaware of certain of claimant’s preexisting conditions that he testified may be predisposing factors for a stroke, concluded that claimant’s stroke was caused by job related exertion and fatigue. * * *Inasmuch as the Board is vested with the authority to credit the opinion of one medical expert over another …, its determination that there was no causal relationship between claimant’s stroke and his employment is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed. Matter of Pengal v Chloe Foods Corporation…, 513003, 3rd Dept 11-14-13

In finding that music teachers were employees [of Musika, LLC], not independent contractors, the Third Department wrote:

Claimant offered guitar lessons for Musika LLC, a business that matches music teachers it deems qualified with students. Musika required its teachers to execute a contract that set the fee for lessons, prohibited them from competing with Musika or soliciting its students, and obliged teachers to perform any services “reasonably requested” by it. The teachers were required to report their work activities to Musika which, in turn, billed the students and paid the teachers by check. Moreover, teachers were expected to notify Musika if they were unavailable to work and could not use a substitute teacher without prior approval. Notwithstanding the proof in the record that could support a contrary result, the above constitutes substantial evidence for the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant and those similarly situated were Musika’s employees and not independent contractors… . Matter of Tekmitchov…, 516112, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

The Third Department affirmed the board’s determination that retroactive transfer of liability to the Special Fund to a time within seven years of the underlying injury was proper:

Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, liability is transferred to the Special Fund “when an application to reopen a closed case is made more than seven years from the date of injury and more than three years after the last payment of compensation” (…see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1]).  Here, there is no dispute that these conditions have been met and the only issue before us is whether the Board properly transferred liability to the Special Fund retroactively to a period of time prior to the lapse of seven years following claimant’s injury.

While the retroactive transfer of liability to the Special Fund is limited to no longer than two years prior to the date of the application to reopen (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1-a]…), there is no statutory requirement that there be a seven year lapse from the date of a claimant’s injury prior to the date of a retroactive transfer of liability (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1-a]).  Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s determination, that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a does not preclude a retroactive transfer of liability to the Special Fund to a time period within seven years of the underlying injury, is not unreasonable, irrational or inconsistent with the purpose of the statute …, and the Board has set forth sufficient reasons for no longer following any prior decisions to the contrary. Canfora v Goldman Sachs…, 515529, 3rd Dept 10-3-13