Workers' comp doesn't cover employee's accident outside prison facility

An employee's accident on her way to work on a street just outside the employer's premises may not be compensable.

Case name: Littles v. New York State Dept. of Corrections, No. 505904 (N.Y. App. Div. 04/23/09).

Ruling: The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's ruling that a prison employee, who was injured in an automobile accident approximately 10 feet from the entrance to the prison facility, did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.

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: An employee's accident on her way to work on a street just outside the employer's premises may not be compensable, where no evidence is presented that the street was controlled by the employer, that workers were encouraged to use it, or that it existed solely to provide access to the employment facility, and where there is no evidence of a special hazard connected to the claimant's employment.

Summary: The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that a prison employee did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. While the street where the accident occurred was in close proximity to the employer's premises, no evidence was provided to show that the street was closed to the public or otherwise controlled by the employer, that workers were encouraged to use it, or that it existed solely to provide access to the prison. Moreover, no evidence was presented to suggest that the accident was related to a special hazard connected to the claimant's employment as opposed to a risk shared by the general public. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held the employee did not sustain an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.

June 29, 2009

Newsletter Sign-up