ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

April 06, 2023

Applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits based on his alleged participation in the "9-11 World Trade Center rescue, recovery or cleanup operations" denied

On September 11, 2001, petitioner [Claimant] was employed as a budget analyst for the New York City Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. In the weeks following the terrorist attacks, Claimant was assigned by OMB to work at offices in Queens and on Maiden Lane in Manhattan, before returning to his Park Place office in March 2002.

Claimant filed a "registration of his participation" in the World Trade Center [WTC] rescue, recovery and cleanup operations with the Workers' Compensation Board [Board] seeking workers' compensation benefits. The Board, among other things, ruled, that Claimant was not a participant in the WTC rescue, recovery and cleanup operations and his application for workers' compensation benefits was rejected. Claimant appealed the Board's decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination noting:

1. Claimant testified that at the time of the WTC attacks he was providing budgetary analysis for the OMB's Parks and Landmarks Unit.

2. Claimant did not testify that he directly participated in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the WTC site.

3. Claimant said that after the attack he was assigned to do "budgetary analysis for the rescue, recovery and cleanup" operations, although his general job duties remained the same."

4. Claimant did not provide any further testimony or other evidence as to what this analysis actually entailed or how the work was connected to the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations.

The Appellate Division opined the Board's factual finding that Claimant did not demonstrate that his job duties as a budget analyst had a direct or tangible connection to the rescue, recovery or cleanup operations at the WTC site is supported by substantial evidence and concluded that the Board did not abused its discretion in finding that Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A "does not apply to this claim."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet. 

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com