Font v. New York City Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1991
• Citation: Font v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 170 A.D.2d 928, 566 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Marie R. FONT, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 754

566 N.Y.S.2d 754

170 A.D.2d 928

In the Matter of the Claim of Marie R. FONT, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Feb. 28, 1991.

Victor A. Kovner (Helen P. Brown of counsel), New York City, for appellant.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Theresa E. Wolinski, of counsel), Albany, for Workers' Compensation Bd., respondent.

Before WEISS, J.P., and MIKOLL, LEVINE, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.

WEISS, Justice Presiding.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed January 12, 1990, which ruled that claimant sustained a compensable consequential injury and awarded workers' compensation benefits.

Claimant was under continuing treatment for a March 28, 1985 work-related compensable injury to her right arm. On February 5, 1987, while en route to her doctor's office for a scheduled treatment, she was pushed from behind as she exited a bus and sustained an injury to her right knee. Her employer has challenged the determination of the Workers' Compensation Board which held that the knee injury, sustained during necessary travel for medical treatment of a preexisting compensable injury, had an industrial origin and constituted a consequential injury.

On this appeal, the employer relies heavily upon Matter of Goss v. Hornblower & Weeks, 69 A.D.2d 972, 416 N.Y.S.2d 95, in which this court affirmed a decision of the Board rejecting a claim for an alleged consequential injury sustained when the claimant was struck by a bicyclist while en route to his doctor for examination of a compensable industrial injury. The Board in that case held that the evidence did not indicate that the second injury was the direct and natural result of an industrial injury. In affirming, this court said, "Since there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board's determination, it must be upheld" (id.). Here, it is undisputed that claimant was injured while on her way to her own physician for treatment when injured in a nonwork-related accident, factually distinguishing this case from Goss.

The Board has cited three New York cases which recognize the compensability of an injury sustained while en route to or from a doctor's office for treatment of a prior compensable injury (see, Matter of Goldberg v. 954 Marcy Corp., 276 N.Y. 313, 12 N.E.2d 311 [injury while traveling to the doctor pursuant to directions of the claimant's employer]; Matter of Kearney v. Shattuck, 12 A.D.2d 678, 207 N.Y.S.2d 722 [injury sustained en route to home necessitated by pain from previous compensable injury]; Matter of John v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 268 App.Div. 840, 50 N.Y.S.2d 253, lv. denied 268 App.Div. 935, 51 N.Y.S.2d 749 [injury during return from office of company doctor].

It has also been noted that "[w]hen an employee suffers additional injuries because of an accident in the course of a journey to a doctor's office occasioned by a compensable injury, the additional injuries are generally held compensable" (1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation § 13.13). Although there is some authority to the contrary, many cases hold that an injury suffered as a result of an accident during a trip to a doctor's office has usually been considered sufficiently causally related to the employment...