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.