Labor & Employment Law

Workers? Compensation benefits resulting as a participant in an ?off-duty athletic event? depends of the nature of the employer?s sponsorship of the a

Workers? Compensation benefits resulting as a participant in an ?off-duty athletic event? depends of the nature of the employer?s sponsorship of the activity

Matter of Huff v Department of Corrections, 2008 NY Slip Op 05422, Decided on June 12, 2008, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Cheryl Huff?s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment. Huff, a correction officer, was employed at the Greene Correctional Facility in Greene County. She was injured while practicing volleyball for the employer's "Olympics," on a team representing another correctional facility. The employer and its Workers? Compensation Insurance carrier appealed the Board?s ruling.

The Appellate Division noted ?Where an employee is neither required nor compensated to participate in an off-duty athletic-related activity, an injury attributable to such is compensable only when the employer "otherwise sponsors the activity," citing Section 10.1 of the Workers' Compensation Law. As to what constitutes sponsorship, the court said sponsorship has been found when there is an affirmative act or overt encouragement by the employer to participate.

The problem, here, however, was that the court found that the Workers? Compensation Appeals Board ?, the Board's finding of compensability of claimant's injury, sustained in the course of training for the Olympics, runs contrary to a previous Board decision with almost identical facts.? In such situations the Appellate Division said that is was incumbent on the administrative body to ?set forth a rational explanation for doing so or such determination will be deemed arbitrary and capricious.?

Further, the court said that the reason offered by the Board for its departure from its precedent ?to be inapposite, inasmuch as the present inquiry involves the actions of the employer in encouraging the activity, not the status of the participant.? The Appellate Division pointed out that the Board had found that a correctional employee's injury, while training to represent the facility in a statewide athletic competition, was not compensable because the employer did not sponsor or encourage participation in the activity. Finding that the Board has not provided a rational basis for departing from its own precedent, the Appellate Division reversed its ruling and remitted the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board ?for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 13, 2008 (boomark / email).