Claimant for Workers' Compensation Benefits served as a crisis response services provider to provide services to first responders to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center [WTC]. Claimant was paid for her services during that time and mainly worked at a command center set up by her employer at a hotel near the WTC site. After her paid assignment ended, Claimant returned and worked as a volunteer at the WTC site for two 10 day periods.
In 2018, Claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained due to exposure to toxins at the WTC site. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] determined that Claimant was a volunteer during her 2001 engagements and, among other things, Claimant's activities were covered by Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A and established the claim for sarcoidosis.
The Workers' Compensation Board reversed the WCLJ's finding, concluding, among other things, that claimant's activities were not covered by Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A because she was not a participant in the WTC rescue, recovery and cleanup operations and disallowed the claim and subsequently the Board denied Claimant's application for reconsideration and, or, "full Board review". Claimant appealed the Board's determinations.
The Appellate Division observed that [1] the "Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A was enacted to remove statutory obstacles to timely claims filing and notice for latent conditions resulting from hazardous exposure for those who worked in rescue, recovery or cleanup operations following the WTC September 11th, 2001 attack; [2] that this legislation was intended to be liberally construed to provide a potential avenue of relief for workers and volunteers suffering ill health as a result of their efforts in the aftermath of the terrorists' attacks; and that [3] the Board has required that the injured claimant directly participate in or otherwise have some tangible connection to the rescue, recovery or cleanup operations in order to fall within the coverage of Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A, said that in order for the Board to deny a claimant's application for benefits, "the Board's underlying factual basis must be supported by substantial evidence."
Claimant had testified that, during her October 2001 and December 2001 assignments, she was assigned to the NYPD's command center for the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations. Considering Claimant's "connection to the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations, and given the liberal construction afforded the remedial statute,"the Appellate Division concluded that "The Board's determination that [Claimant] did not participate in the rescue, recovery and cleanup operations under Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A is not supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly the Court reverse the Board's decisions and remit the matter to the Board for further proceedings.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.