Blanchard v. Integrated Food Systems

• Citation: 632 N.Y.S.2d 329,220 A.D.2d 895
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Anayansi BLANCHARD, Appellant, v. INTEGRATED FOOD SYSTEMS et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 19 October 1995
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 329

632 N.Y.S.2d 329

220 A.D.2d 895

In the Matter of the Claim of Anayansi BLANCHARD, Appellant, v. INTEGRATED FOOD SYSTEMS et al., Respondents.

Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

Oct. 19, 1995.

Kaufman & Feit (Matthew A. Kaufman, of counsel), New York City, for appellant.

Weiss & Wexler (Michael C. Salvo, of counsel), New York City, for Integrated Food Systems and another, respondents.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, WHITE, PETERS and SPAIN, JJ.

CARDONA, Presiding Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed June 29, 1993, which ruled, inter alia, that the claim did not constitute an exception to the exclusive liability rule set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Claimant, then age 16, was employed by a fast food restaurant operated by Integrated Food Systems. On November 8, 1986, she was asked to work the 6:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. shift. Claimant was assigned to work the drive-thru window. When claimant's replacement failed to arrive, she sought permission to depart, but was waved off by her supervisor who was involved in an extended and apparently personal conversation. Concerned that she would be discharged if she departed without permission, claimant continued working despite the late hour and the nature of the neighborhood. At approximately 12:30 A.M., claimant was shot during the course of an armed robbery of the drive-thru window.

Contending that her employer had intentionally and recklessly placed her in mortal peril in total disregard for her personal safety and well-being, and characterizing the conduct of her supervisor as extreme and outrageous, claimant sought to have her claim placed outside the exclusive liability limitations of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, and that the employer's act in requiring claimant to work past the lawful working hours for minors (see, Labor Law former § 173[1] did not constitute an exception to Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Claimant appeals.

An employer's liability to an employee under the Workers' Compensation Law is "exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever" (Workers' Compensation Law § 11). Intentional conduct and deliberate action, sufficient to meet the exclusivity rule of the Workers' Compensation Law, must be done with the desire to bring about the consequences of the acts (Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 189 A.D.2d 497, 501, 596 N.Y.S.2d 68, lv. dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 748, 602 N.Y.S.2d 806, 622 N.E.2d 307; Finch v. Swingly, 42 A.D.2d 1035, 348 N.Y.S.2d 266). There must be specific acts directed at causing harm to a particular employee to bring a case...