Pierre v. ABF Freight

211 A.D.3d 1284

180 N.Y.S.3d 337

In the Matter of the Claim of Philome PIERRE, Claimant,

v.ABF FREIGHT et al., Appellants.

Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

534697

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: November 18, 2022

Decided and Entered: December 15, 2022

Lois Law Firm LLC, New York City (Addison O'Donnell of counsel), for appellants.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York City (Alison Kent–Friedman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed August 2, 2021, which ruled, among other things, that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment.

On May 19, 2020 claimant, a freight delivery driver, applied for workers' compensation benefits on the basis of a diagnosis of COVID–19. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier (hereinafter collectively referred to as the carrier) controverted the claim, contending, among other things, that COVID–19 was not a covered accident within Workers' Compensation Law and that the alleged injury did not occur in the course of claimant's employment. Following an independent medical examination (hereinafter IME) and hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, finding that claimant had met his burden of establishing that he had contracted COVID–19 through his employment. Upon administrative review, the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The carrier appeals.

We affirm. Initially, the contraction of COVID–19 in the workplace "reasonably qualif[ies] as an unusual hazard, not the natural and unavoidable result of employment" and, thus, is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law ( Matter of Johannesen v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 84 N.Y.2d 129, 137, 615 N.Y.S.2d 336, 638 N.E.2d 981 [1994] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see Matter of Middleton v. Coxsackie Correctional Facility, 38 N.Y.2d 130, 135–136, 379 N.Y.S.2d 3, 341 N.E.2d 527 [1975] ; Matter of McDonough v. Whitney Point Cent. School, 15 A.D.2d 191, 192–193, 222 N.Y.S.2d 678 [3d Dept. 1961] ).

"Whether a compensable accident has occurred is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board and its determination will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence" ( Matter of Leon v. Monadnock Constr. Inc., 208 A.D.3d 1415, 1415, 174 N.Y.S.3d 484 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Vasquez v. Northstar Constr. Group Servs. Inc., 205 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 169 N.Y.S.3d 375 [3d Dept. 2022] ). "Substantial evidence is a minimal standard and demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable" ( Matter of Vaughan v. Heritage Air Sys., Inc., 208 A.D.3d 1562, 1564, 175 N.Y.S.3d 609 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "In this regard, the claimant bears the burden of establishing that the subject injury arose out of and in the course of his or her employment and, further, must demonstrate, by competent medical evidence, the existence of a causal connection between his or her injury and his or her employment" ( Matter of Minichino v. Amazon.com Dedc LLC, 204 A.D.3d 1289, 1291, 167 N.Y.S.3d 594 [3d Dept. 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "The concept of time-definiteness required of an accident can be thought of as applying to either the cause or the result, and it is not decisive that a claimant is unable to pinpoint the exact date on which the incident occurred" ( Matter of Connolly v. Covanta Energy Corp., 172 A.D.3d 1839, 1841, 100 N.Y.S.3d 447 [3d Dept. 2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted]).

After being out of work on certain days in the beginning of March 2020 with an upper respiratory infection, claimant returned to work on April 2, 2020. On that day, claimant left the facility to make deliveries and was then instructed to return because the facility would be temporarily closing. According to claimant, there had been a "major infection [of COVID–19] at the plant." The facility was set to reopen on April 10, 2020, following sanitization. In the meantime, claimant began to display symptoms and, on April 6, 2020, was diagnosed with COVID–19. Claimant's symptoms worsened, culminating in his hospitalization from April 15, 2020 until April 23, 2020. While the testimony was unclear as to exactly how many employees contracted COVID–19 during this time, the record demonstrates that numerous other employees had and that one had passed away as a result thereof. The union shop steward testified that approximately seven people had reported to him that they had contracted COVID–19. The employer's operations manager testified that, while only two employees submitted paperwork, the shop steward would have a better idea of how many individuals had contracted COVID–19 because he had a "direct line" with employees. Prior to the shutdown, there was no requirement that employees wear personal protective equipment and the breakroom...