Chernin v. Progress Service Co.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1959
• Citation: 9 A.D.2d 170,192 N.Y.S.2d 758
• Parties: Claim for Workmen's Compensation Benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law, made by Samuel CHERNIN, Claimant-Respondent, v. PROGRESS SERVICE CO., Inc., Employer, and Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 758

192 N.Y.S.2d 758

9 A.D.2d 170

Claim for Workmen's Compensation Benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law, made by Samuel CHERNIN, Claimant-Respondent, v. PROGRESS SERVICE CO., Inc., Employer, and Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier Appellants. Workmen's Compensation Board, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Nov. 13, 1959.

John H. Roberts, New York City, for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Roy Wiedersum and Edward A. Bailey, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel, for respondent, Workmen's Compensation Board.

Jules Berg, New York City, for claimant-respondent.

Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.

HERLIHY, Justice.

Claiment, a New York City taxi driver, on December 7, 1954, was involved in an automobile accident when a pedestrian darted in front of and came in contact with his cab. Pedestrian fell to the pavement and was removed to the hospital in an unconscious state. The claimant suffered no physical injuries. As part of police investigation at the scene, he was asked for his license, became abusive and created 'quite a disturbance'. A hearing was held in January at which he was reprimanded but his 'hack' license was not revoked. He filed various reports concerning the accident with the Motor Vehicle Bureau and other agencies. He continued working regularly from the date of the accident until January 10, 1955 and on the 17th of that month was admitted to Bellevue Hospital suffering from a mental condition. The brother of the claimant was appointed his Committee and testified at the hearing concerning changes in his personality which he noticed subsequent to the accident. Witnesses associated with the employer testified as to the personality of the claimant before the date of the accident and that they noticed nothing unusual or different subsequent thereto.

It is undisputed that immediately following the accident he was very upset.

There was, likewise, substantial medical testimony developed which created a question of fact as to the mental condition from which he suffered and its relation to the occurrence on December 7.

The problem with which we are confronted is one of law. Is an occurrence arising out of and in the course of employment--in which there is no physical injury--which caused psychological trauma aggravating a dormant repressed schizophrenia and resulting in mental disability compensable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, § 1 et seq.? Or, to simplify the issue, is compensation payable for a mental injury precipitated by a mental cause?

The law is well settled that awards may be made for physical injuries resulting from mental causes, Church v. County of Westchester 253 App.Div. 859, 1 N.Y.S.2d 581; Wachsstock v. Sky View Transportation Co., 5 A.D.2d 1028, 173 N.Y.S.2d 405, and mental injuries resulting from physical causes. Rodriguez v. New York Dock Co., 256 App.Div. 875, 9 N.Y.S.2d 264; Chicklowski v. Hotel Syracuse, 5 A.D.2d 704, 168 N.Y.S.2d 641; Campana v. Hogan, 7 A.D.2d 815, 180 N.Y.S.2d 1005.

The question here is novel as it apparently has not heretofore been decided by the courts. Larson on Workmen's Compensation Law has little text on the subject but cites a New Jersey case, Voss v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 187 A. 334, 14 N.J.Misc. 791, where a stenographer was called on 'idiot' by a co-worker, became upset thereby and subsequently was treated for a nervous spell. That court determined there was no accident arising out of and in the course of her...