Labor & Employment Law

Injury incurred on shift conducting personal business not covered by workers? compensation

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Injury incurred on shift conducting personal business not covered by workers? compensation
Matter of Scott M. Mills v New York State Police, 41 A.D.3d 1083, Appellate Division, Third Department

New York State Trooper Scott M. Mills appealed a ruling by the Workers? Compensation Board holding that he had not sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Mills, a Trooper assigned to Zone One, was acting as the general contractor in overseeing the building of his new home. The residence was being built on land that was adjacent to Zone One?s geographical area. In the course of his 12-hour shift as a Trooper, Mills stopped by his property to evaluate the progress of the builder constructing his home. While inspecting the progress that was being made, he fell and sustained injuries to his left wrist and left eye.

Although a Workers? Compensation Law Judge determined that Mills? injuries were work related, the Workers? Compensation Board reversed, finding that Mills was involved in a noncompensable personal act at the time that he sustained his injuries.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board?s ruling.

The basic rule: Injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment are compensable under the Workers? Compensation Law. In contrast, purely personal activities are considered outside the scope of employment and are not compensable under the Workers? Compensation Law.

Although testimony from Mill?s supervisor indicated that Mills ?was not abrogating his duties by stopping by his property during his shift,? the Appellate Division said that the record, nevertheless, supports the Board?s conclusion that his accident did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment.

Mills admitted that he had not been dispatched to the specific address where his home was being constructed or even to that particular area but, rather, that he found himself with time to stop by the house prior to taking his lunch break. Thus, said the court, the Board?s determination that he was present at that location for personal reasons unrelated to his employment is supported by substantial evidence.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on April 01, 2008 (boomark / email).