Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Involvement in an accident going to or from work typically is not job-related for the purposes of receiving workers' compensation benefits

Involvement in an accident going to or from work typically is not job-related for the purposes of receiving workers' compensation benefits
Matter of Littles v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 61 AD3d 1266

While en route to her job at a prison, Wandell Littles was injured when she was involved in an automobile accident approximately 10 feet from the entrance to the facility. She had not yet reached the entrance gate. The two-way street on which she was traveling was abutted by parking for the facility and living accommodations for employees. The Workers? Compensation Board found that Littles did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.

In response to Littles? appeal, the Appellate Division said that as a general rule "accidents that occur in public areas away from the place of employment and during non-work hours do not arise out of and in the course of employment."

Where, as here, said the court, the accident occurred near individual?s place of employment, "there develops 'a gray area' where the risks of street travel merge with the risks attendant with employment and where the mere fact that the accident took place on a public road or sidewalk may not ipso facto negate the right to compensation." Such an accident is a compensable incident and risk of employment if there is a demonstration of "(1) 'a special hazard at the particular off-premises point' and (2) a 'close association of the access route with the premises, so far as going and coming are concerned.'"

In this instance the court said that although the street where the accident occurred was in close proximity to the employer's premises, there was no evidence to show that the street was closed to the public or otherwise controlled by the employer or that workers were encouraged to use it or that it existed solely to provide access to the prison.

Nor, said the Appellate Division, there was no evidence presented to suggest that Littles? accident was related to a special hazard connected to her employment as opposed to a risk shared by the general public. Accordingly, the court decided that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Littles did not sustain an accidental injury arising out and in the course of her employment.

In contrast, in Neacosia v New York Power Authority, 85 NY2d 471, the Court of Appeals decided that an employee who was injured after he stopped on his way home to leave his work uniform at a cleaning shop was acting within the scope of his employment and thus was eligible for workers' compensation benefits.

Michael Neacosia was employed as a security officer by the New York State Power Authority at a nuclear power plant located near Oswego, New York. The Authority provided its security officers with uniforms and required that they keep the uniforms clean and presentable.

To assist in this, the Authority had made arrangements with a number of cleaning establishments to clean the uniforms and bill the agency for their services. In the alternative, security personnel could arrange for the cleaning themselves and submit bills for the cost of the cleaning.

One day Neacosia completed his shift, left work and then stopped to deliver his uniforms to one of the cleaners recommended by the Authority. The cleaner would bill the Authority for its services.

After leaving his uniform at cleaner's, Neacosia headed home along his usual route. During the trip he was involved in an automobile accident and sustained severe injuries. Neacosia's claimed his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment and filed for Workers' Compensation Benefits.

The Authority controverted his claim, arguing that Neacosia had been involved in an accident while driving his personal automobile on a public highway after leaving work and was not engaged in any work related activity at the time he was injured.

Ultimately the Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers? Compensation Board's determination that Neacosia suffered an injury that arose ?out of and in the course of [his] employment.

"The court, conceding that the general rule is that injuries sustained during travel to and from the place of employment do not come within the ambit of the Workers? Compensation Law, said that there are exceptions to this "going and coming" rule. One such exception arises when the employee is engaged in a "special errand" for the employer. The court then sustained the Board's holding that Neacosia was engaged in a "special errand" at the time he was injured and thus eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 04, 2010 (boomark / email).