Workers’ Compensation Board webinars for employers and for employees

Webinars for employees

The Workers’ Compensation Board (Board) continues its webinar for workers who believe they contracted COVID-19 on the job, especially those who have missed time from work or are suffering from ongoing or “long-haul” symptoms. Additional dates have also been added.

Each one-hour session will provide information on workers’ rights when it comes to filing a workers’ compensation claim and the cash and/or medical benefits they may be eligible to receive.

While the online sessions are targeted toward workers who have lost time from work, have ongoing medical problems and/or fall into the category of “long haulers,” the information is relevant to anyone who believes they may have contracted COVID-19 due to an exposure at work. 

Please note: workers have two years from the time they contracted COVID-19 to file a claim.

Registration is not required. To join, please select the "Join webinar" link below.

Wednesday, October 12, 2022
12:00 P.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Join webinar
Add to your calendar!

Wednesday, November 9, 2022
12:00 P.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Join webinar
Add to your calendar!

Wednesday, December 14, 2022
12:00 P.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Join webinar
Add to your calendar!

More information on COVID-19 can be found on the Board’s website, including information on how to file a COVID-19 workers’ compensation claim, a link to search for a Board-authorized health care provider, and the latest news and updates. You can also subscribe for email updates on COVID-19 and workers’ compensation.

If you are having trouble registering or attending this webinar, check out these Webinar FAQs.

Webinars for employers

In addition, on each of the two dates listed below, the Workers Compensation Board’s Office of the Advocate for Business will present a webinar on the basics of the workers’ compensation system, including insurance types, coverage requirements, and employers’ obligations under the law. Each one-hour presentation will also cover: 

• Who needs coverage and who does not need coverage
• How and when to report an injury or illness (including COVID-19)
• Considerations when hiring independent contractors, laborers, and domestic workers
• Lowering premiums
• Penalties and where to go for assistance with them

Sessions are free and there will be time at the end for questions. Registration is not required. To join, please select the “join webinar” link below.

Wednesday, November 2, 2022
12:00 P.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Join webinar
Add to your calendar!

Wednesday, December 7, 2022
12:00 P.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Join webinar
Add to your calendar!

Visit the Advocate for Business section of the Board’s website for additional resources.

You can also call the Advocate for Business office at (518) 486-3311 or email advocatebusiness@wcb.ny.gov.

 

Failure to alleged injury in the initial claim for Workers' Compensation Benefits or seek medical attention fatal to establishing eligibility for benefits

A patrol officer [Claimant] employed by a self-insured Sheriff's Department, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits stemming from injuries to his jaw and head that occurred when he was assaulted by an individual while on duty. After Claimant's case was established he requested that his claim for benefits be amended to include "a causally-related injury to his left shoulder" based upon, in part, proof that he had been granted General Municipal Law §207-c benefits for that injury.

The Workers' Compensation Board [Board] determined that Claimant did not sustain a causally-related injury to his left shoulder and denied benefits base on this claim. Claimant appealed the Board's ruling.

Citing Workers' Compensation Law §2[7], the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining an injury is compensable only where it "aris[es] out of and in the course of employment" and the Claimant seeking benefits, "bears the burden of establishing, by competent medical evidence, a causal relationship between an injury and his or her employment." Further, said the court, the "factual determination" is the Board's and such decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.

The Appellate Division's decision notes that Claimant testified that he injured his left shoulder while attempting to place restraints on an uncooperative, disorderly individual during the underlying incident but he had not asserted left shoulder injury in his initial claim for benefits and he did not seek medical attention for the alleged shoulder injury until five months following the incident. Further, said the Appellate Division, Claimant's "emergency room medical reports from the day of the incident reveal no concerns or complaints regarding his shoulder."

Significantly, a physician who evaluated Claimant on behalf of the Sheriff's Department opined that, based upon his review of Claimant's medical records and a physical examination, "Claimant's left shoulder injury was not causally-related to the underlying incident."

Addressing Claimant's arguments that relied on his being provided with General Municipal Law §207-c benefits, the Appellate Division opined that "it has long been held that Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law §207-c are discrete statutory schemes designed to fulfill different purposes" and "do not necessarily examine and determine the same issue, in the same way, and under the same protocols, procedures and conditions, " citing Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau, 94 NY2d 253.

Concluding that "substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion" that Claimant did not sustain a causally- related injury to his left shoulder, the Appellate Division held that the Board's conclusion "will not be disturbed."

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

Disability Benefits for fire, police and other public sector personnel - An e-book focusing on retirement for disability under the NYS Employees' Retirement System, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and similar statutes providing benefits to employees injured both "on-the-job" and "off-the-job." For more information about this e-book click HERE or to Read a FREE excerpt click here (requires Adobe Reader).

 

Applying the doctrine of acting in loco parentis in situations involving a school district's minor students

A high school student who was a minor [Student] committed suicide while at home. Earlier that day [Student] had been [1] been "discharged" from school and [2] suspended for disciplinary infractions. Alleging negligence, breach of its in loco parentis duty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death, Student's mother [Parent] sued the School District, BOCES and certain named school officials [Defendants].

Parent, among other things alleged that Student committed suicide as a result of the failure of Defendants to provide proper supervision, bullying endured by Student, and improperly suspending Student. Supreme Court granted branches of Defendants' separate motions for summary judgment, dismissing certain causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them.

Parent appealed the Supreme Court's ruling but the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's decision insofar as appealed from. The court explained that under the doctrine of acting in loco parentis with respect to its minor students, a school district owes a special duty to such students themselves and it "will be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision."

Noting that schools are not insurers of the safety of their students and the duty they owe to their students derives from their physical custody and control over the students, the Appellate Division opined that a school's custodial duty ceases once the student has passed out of the school's orbit of authority and the parent or guardian is perfectly free to reassume control over the child's protection, citing Vernali v Harrison Cent. School Dist., 51 AD3d 782. 

Although "[g]enerally, a school cannot be held liable for injuries that occur off school property and beyond the orbit of its authority," the Appellate Division's decision notes that a school's duty to its students continues and is breached if the student is released without further supervision into "a forseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating."

Opining that Defendants had established "their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the [Student] committed suicide when he was not on school property and no longer in their custody or under their control" and that the Defendants did not release the Student "into a foreseeably hazardous situation they had a hand in creating."

The Appellate Division's decision concludes by observing that [1] Defendants established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not assume a separate special duty of care to protect Student and guard against him committing suicide and [2] Defendants lacked sufficient notice of the possibility of the Student's committing suicide to be liable for a breach of any such special duty.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Summaries of recent decisions posted on the Internet by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH]

                Click on text highlighted in color to access the text described.

 

Personnel

ALJ recommends termination of employment for one correction officer and 50 to 60 days’ suspension for the other officers for misconduct.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey found that three correction officers drank alcohol while on duty, two officers tampered with evidence, one officer used an unauthorized cell phone, and two officers made false statements to interviewers by denying that they consumed alcohol on duty.

Dep’t of Correction v. Wilson, Cameron, Williams, and Winfrey, OATH Index Nos. 117/22, 118/22, 119/22, 349/22, 415/22, and 487/22 (Mar. 4, 2022), adopted in part,modified on penalty in part, Comm’r Dec. (May 11, 2022).

Read more aboutDep’t of Correction v. Wilson, Cameron, Williams, and Winfrey

 

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE.  Click to Read a FREE excerpt (requires Adobe Reader). 

 

Human Rights

Respondents found to have discriminated by failing to provide an accessible entrance and a reasonable accommodation.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison found that respondents H&M and a property management company discriminated against a disabled complainant by failing to provide an accessible entrance that afforded full and equal enjoyment, on equal terms and conditions as able-bodied persons, and by failing to provide complainant and other disabled persons with a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. McKnight v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. & BJW Realty LLC et al., OATH Index No. 905/20 (Mar. 31, 2022).

Read more about Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. McKnight v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. & BJW Realty LLC et al.

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE.   Click to Read a FREE excerpt (requires Adobe Reader).

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE. Click to Read a FREE excerpt (requires Adobe Reader).  

 

 

 

Civics and Science: Contemporary Issues for Civil Democracy

Dr. Robert A. Michaels, NYPPL's Science Consultant, has published a new book focusing on contemporary issues of critical importance to American democracy.  

The book explores, in a strictly non-partisan manner, the nexus between civics and science, identifying contemporary issues of critical importance for American democracy. 

It promotes objective, clear thinking toward evidence-based decision making in a range of important issue areas.  Dr. Michaels is a politically unaffiliated observer of politics.  His analysis is rigorous, and his writing engaging and personal.

Available in a Kindle Edition [$4.99] and in a paperback hard copy format [$19.99].  For additional information about this work and to order your copy from Amazon, click HERE.