Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Workers? Compensation held the exclusive remedy available to an employee injured on the way to a work-related meeting

Workers? Compensation held the exclusive remedy available to an employee injured on the way to a work-related meeting
Sulecki v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 04706, Decided on June 3, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

Robert Sulecki, an engineer employed by the New York City Department of Design and Construction, was injured after tripping on a sidewalk adjoining a City-owned building while on his way to a work-related meeting. When he sued the City to recover for the injuries he suffered, the City moved to dismiss Sulecki?s complaint, contending that workers? compensation was Sulecki?s exclusive remedy.

The Appellate Division agreed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy ?where, as here, the employer and the landowner are essentially the same party and the plaintiff is injured while performing his job.?

The court?s rationale: No exception should be made simply because Sulecki?s injury did not occur at the location of the work-related meeting.

Another ?off the premises? workers? compensation claim was considered in Neacosia v NY Power Authority, 85 NY2d 471. The decision demonstrates that while Workers' Compensation Benefits are available to individuals who are injured in the performance of their duties they may also be available to individuals injured in the course of performing a ?special errand? on behalf of his or her employer.

In Neacosia the Court of Appeals decided that an employee who was injured after he stopped on his way home to leave his work uniform at a cleaning shop was acting within the scope of his employment and thus was eligible for workers' compensation benefits.

Michael Neacosia was employed as a security officer by the New York State Power Authority.

The Authority provided its security officers with uniforms and required that they keep the ?uniforms clean and presentable.? To assist in this, the Authority had made arrangements with a number of cleaning establishments to clean the uniforms and bill the agency for their services.*

Neacosia, after completing his shift, stopped to deliver his uniforms to one of the cleaners on the Authority?s "authorized cleaners" list. After dropping off his uniforms, Neacosia headed home along his usual route. During the trip he was involved in an automobile accident and sustained severe injuries. Neacosia's claimed his injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment and filed for Workers' Compensation Benefits.

The Authority controverted his claim, arguing that he had been involved in an accident while driving his personal automobile on a public highway after leaving work and was not engaged in any work related activity at the time he was injured.

An Administrative Law Judge's decided that under the facts of this claim, which were stipulated, Neacosia's travel had a dual purpose which served to extend the scope of his employment. The Board rejected the Authority's appeal, holding that Neacosia was entitled to him Workers' Compensation benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's determination.

Although the general rule is that injuries sustained during travel to and from the place of employment covered by the Workers' Compensation Law, there are exceptions to this "going and coming" rule. One such exception arises when the employee is engaged in a "special errand" for the employer. The Court sustained the Board's ruling that Neacosia was engaged in a "special errand" at the time he was injured and thus eligible for Workers' Compensation benefits.

* In the alternative, security personnel could arrange for the cleaning themselves and submit bills for the cost of the cleaning.

The Sulecki decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_04706.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 04, 2010 (boomark / email).