Witness discredits claimant's contention that he was assaulted by coworker

Where a witness credibly testifies that a coworker did not physically assault the claimant, substantial evidence supports the rejection of the claimant's contention that he was injured by the coworker and the decision to deny benefits.

Case name: Rios v. Goodwill Industries, 109 NYWCLR 43 (N.Y. App. Div. 03/26/09).

Ruling: The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed a denial of benefits to a claimant who alleged he was physically accosted by a coworker.

Sub-subcontractor's employee not entitled to coverage from contractor (02/25/13)
Cleaner's use of helpers indicates independent contractor status (11/01/12)
Statement made weeks before termination moves claim forward (09/30/11)
Failure to rebut rehab counselor's report boosts driver's claim (04/19/12)
Hospital not subject to penalties for worker's fall in elevator shaft (04/19/12)

What it means: Where a witness credibly testifies that a coworker briefly put his arm across the claimant's shoulders or chest and made a threatening comment, but did not physically assault the claimant, substantial evidence supports the rejection of the claimant's contention that he was injured by the coworker and the decision to deny benefits.

Summary: The claimant alleged he was physically assaulted by a coworker while at the jobsite. The testimony of another coworker who witnessed the incident was deemed to be a credible account. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division determined that there was a nexus between the incident and his employment. However, the court found the claimant exaggerated the incident and that he was not entitled to workers' compensation.

The court credited the witness's explanation that while the claimant appeared upset, he did not immediately leave, did not say that he was upset, and did not give any indication that he was injured. The court rejected the claimant's account of the incident. The court found the claimant did not present credible medical evidence to establish that his alleged injuries were related to his employment. The court upheld the denial of benefits based on the lack of evidence.

May 28, 2009

Newsletter Sign-up