A train conductor [Claimant] for a self-insured employer filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Claimant alleged that notwithstanding his high-risk of exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus and an unsafe work environment, he was not provided with adequate personal protective equipment by his employer. This, Claimant contended, resulted in anxiety and his preexisting psychiatric conditions were exacerbated. The employer controverted the claim.
A Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] disallowed the claim, finding that the stress that Claimant was under was the same as other similarly situated workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision.* Claimant appealed the Board's ruling.
The Appellate Division sustained the Board's determination. Citing Matter of Novak v St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp., 148 AD3d 1509, the court, noting "[it] is well settled that a mental injury arising from work-related stress is compensable", pointed out that in order to receive benefits the claimant has the "burden of establishing, by competent medical evidence, that a causal connection exist[s] between [his or] her [psychological injury] and [his or] her employment".** However, opined the court, "[for] a mental injury premised on work-related stress to be compensable, a claimant must demonstrate that the stress that caused the claimed mental injury was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment".
The question of whether the stress experienced by a claimant is more than that normally encountered is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its finding will not be disturbed by the court when supported by substantial evidence and courts "defer to the Board's credibility assessments".
Finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's factual finding that neither "Claimant's fear of contracting COVID-19," which the Board concluded was "a fear likely experienced by all [t]rain [c]onductors in March of 2020," nor his work environment and duties "resulted in stress greater than that experienced by similarly situated train operators during the pandemic," as "exposure to COVID-19 was a risk being experienced by all train conductors in March 2020 as part of their normal duties".
The Appellate Division also noted that Claimant's reliance on cases involving infectious diseases contracted at work was misplaced "as he did not contract COVID-19 at work."
* The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the WCLJ's finding to the extent that it was premised on a determination that claimant was an "essential worker," finding that it had no bearing on his claim for workers' compensation benefits.
** See Matter of Issayou v Issayuou Inc., 174 AD3d 1277.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
See, also, Matter of Djanuzakov v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. posted on the Internet at https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_03893.htm and In the Matter of the Claim of Tracey Brown, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent. Workers' Compensation, posted on the Internet at https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_03888.htm .