Eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits based on work-related stress

Eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits based on work-related stress

Matter of State Insurance Fund and Workers’ Compensation Board, 2016 NY Slip Op 07734, Appellate Division, Third Department

A supervisor [Claimant] filed for workers’ compensation benefits contending that she that had felt threatened as the result of a work-related incident involving one of her subordinates and that the incident had resulted in stress, panic attacks and digestive problems.* 

After a series of hearings and the submission of Claimant's medical records and the reports and deposition testimony of her treating physician, as well as an independent medical exam by the workers' compensation carrier's consultant, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] ultimately issued a decision disallowing the claim on the grounds, among others, that Claimant did not experience work-related stress greater than what is experienced in a normal work environment, and that "the exacerbation of her mental health symptoms did not arise out of and in the course of the incident or its aftermath."

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s findings and determination denying Claimant's allegations that she suffered a work-related injury or disease arising out of and in the course of her employment. Her claim denied  for workers' compensation benefits by the Board, Claimant then appealed the Board’s decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s ruling, citing Matter of Lozowski v Wiz, 134 AD3d 1177. In Lozowski the court held that it was "well established that ‘mental injuries caused by work-related stress are compensable if the claimant can establish that the stress that caused the injury was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment.’"

However, said the court, in resolving that factual question, the Board's determination will not be disturbed provided that it is supported by substantial evidence.

In this instance, although the medical evidence concluded, based upon Claimant's self reporting, that the incident caused or exacerbated her mental health problems, substantial evidence supports the Board's factual determination that the incident was not compensable on the ground that the work-related stress suffered by Claimant that led to her anxiety, PTSD and depression was not "greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment."

In contrast to Claimant’s description of the events constituting the incident, including Claimant’s testimony that her subordinate “swore at her during the encounter,” the WCLJ credited the evidence given by a coworker who testified that she had overheard "a work interaction" in which Claimant and the subordinate "disagreed" and that she had informed Claimant, after the incident, that the subordinate used profanity after Claimant walked away from the disagreement.

In addition the WCLJ discreded Claimant's account of the incident and her claim that this brief episode left her terrified based upon her testimonial demeanor as well as her inconsistent accounts and actions after the incident, including Claimant's return to her subordinate's work area shortly after the incident to speak with a coworker and her testimony that “the day after the incident, she had a meeting with the [subordinate]" and later reported that the matter was "settled" and that they were "moving forward with a good working relationship."

The Appellate Division, deferring to the Board's credibility determinations, found that the record as a whole supported its conclusion that this was, at most, "an isolated incident of insubordination" to which the employer appropriately responded, which was not so improper or extraordinary as to give rise to a viable claim for a work-related injury.

Finding “… no basis to disturb the Board's determination that Claimant's work-related stress did not exceed that which could be expected by a supervisor in a normal work environment,” the Appellate Division denied Claimant’s appeal.

* The Appellate Division’s decision notes that “After the incident, Claimant, who had a history of treatment for non-work-related anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], reportedly experienced increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, as well as panic attacks, insomnia and difficulty concentrating for which she sought treatment from her internal medicine physician.” 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_07734.htm

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending November 26, 2016

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending November 26, 2016 

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Links to material posted on the Internet highlighted in COLOR.

Pre-school education providers claimed over one million dollars of unallowed expenses
Aim High Children’s Services and the Hebrew Institute for the Deaf and Exceptional Children, two Brooklyn preschool special education providers, claimed nearly $1.4 million in taxpayer reimbursements for ineligible costs, according to audits released by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.


Hiring and Budgeting problems at the Brentwood Union Free School District

A pattern of poor budgeting led the Brentwood Union Free School District to accumulate excessive fund balance as well as reserve funds that surpassed board-approved amounts and have gone unused, according to an audit released by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.


Former TownClerk padded her pay with town funds

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the arrest of Jordan Green after an investigation and audit found that she paid herself thousands of dollars in unauthorized payroll payments. Green also had the town pay back her loans from the state’s retirement system while employed as the clerk to the supervisor for the Town of Minerva. The arrest is the result of DiNapoli's partnership with the New York State Police and Essex County District Attorney Kristy Sprague. Details are posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/nov16/112316a.htm?utm_source=weekly+news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=corruption&utm_content=20161127&utm_campaign=fiscal+oversight

School DistrictAudits

Bellmore-MerrickCentral High School District – Financial Condition

GouverneurCentral School District – Financial Management

IrvingtonUnion Free School District – Information Technology

NewarkCentral School District – Financial Condition and Claims Processing

Port Jervis City School District – Financial Condition

Tests applied by courts in determining if claims of unlawful discrimination and, or, retaliation can survive a motion for summary judgment

Tests applied by courts in determining if claims of unlawful discrimination and, or, retaliation can survive a motion for summary judgment

Langton v Warwick Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 07626, Appellate Division, Second Department

Patricia Langton sued the Warwick Valley Central School District to recover damages for alleged unlawful retaliation and employment discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Executive Law §296.

Supreme Court granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment based on its finding that  the School District and its employees were not amenable to suit under Executive Law §296(3). Langon appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

On appeal the School District conceded that the basis for the Supreme Court's determination granting summary judgment was incorrect but, in the alternative, contended that the order granting summary judgment should nevertheless be affirmed, although on different grounds.

The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed Langon’s appeal, explaining it rulings as follows:

Regarding retaliation

The court explained that a plaintiff alleging unlawful retaliation under state or federal law must show that (1) he or she has engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer was aware that the plaintiff participated in such activity, (3) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

In order to establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant must [1] demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, [2] having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons in rebuttal to its  challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual.

The Appellate Division ruled that in this instance the School District met its initial burden of demonstrating that the Langon could not make out a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that the School District’s actions Langon challenged were not causally connected to any protected activity in which Langon had participated. Further, said the court, Langon “failed to submit sufficient evidence from which a causal connection could be found between any protected activity in which she engaged and any adverse employment action.”

Regarding allegation of unlawful employment discrimination

Addressing Langon’s allegation that the School District had engaged in unlawful  employment discrimination, the Appellate Division explained that "[a] plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment has the initial burden to establish . . . (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position; (3) he or she was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; and (4) the discharge or other adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination."

If the plaintiff meets this “initial burden”, the employer must rebut the presumption of unlawful discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision.

Addressing the situation underlying Langon's appeal, the Appellate Division said that to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a discriminatory employment action, the School District must [1] demonstrate either Langon had failed to establish every element of intentional unlawful discrimination, or, the School District, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, [2] the absence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the explanations were pretextual.

Here, said the court, the School District met its prima facie burden by offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions challenged by Langon and also by demonstrating the absence of material issues of fact as to whether its explanations were pretextual.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment notwithstanding its being founded on a misperception of the relevant law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_07626.htm