Olsson v. Nyack Hosp.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1993
• Citation: 598 N.Y.S.2d 348,193 A.D.2d 1006
• Parties: , 83 Ed. Law Rep. 370 Nancy OLSSON, Respondent, v. NYACK HOSPITAL, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 348

598 N.Y.S.2d 348

193 A.D.2d 1006, 83 Ed. Law Rep. 370

Nancy OLSSON, Respondent, v. NYACK HOSPITAL, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

May 20, 1993.

Molod & Berkowitz, P.C. (Robert C. Agee, of counsel), New York City, for appellant.

David E. Worby, P.C. (Robert S. Ondrovic, of counsel), White Plains, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, MERCURE and CREW, JJ.

MIKOLL, Justice Presiding.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Meehan, J.), entered October 31, 1990 in Rockland County, which inter alia, granted plaintiff's cross motion to dismiss defendant's third affirmative defense.

The issue on this appeal is whether the Workers' Compensation Law is a bar to plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff was a student intern at defendant beginning in July 1985. Plaintiff's internship was pursuant to a "Clinical Education Agreement" (hereinafter the agreement) between Boston University, Sargent College (an affiliate of Boston University) and defendant. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant could approve the selection of interns and, if necessary, dismiss them. To receive a Bachelor of Science degree and eventual licensure as an occupational therapist, plaintiff had to acquire a minimum of six months of field work experience. She did not receive wages for her services. The agreement provided that defendant was to provide "supervised learning experiences for the affiliating students". Plaintiff worked under the supervision of Karen Seuss, an occupational therapist employed by defendant. After a period of training and supervision, plaintiff was assigned her own patient load.

Boston University procured workers' compensation insurance with Liberty Mutual covering plaintiff. Plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy patient. Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries that she sustained. In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant exercised inadequate supervision, management and control in failing to select properly trained personnel to teach, instruct and supervise students, thus creating a dangerous environment resulting in her injuries.

Supreme Court, in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, held that plaintiff's status is controlled by the agreement, which declares that students participating in the intern program shall not be deemed employees. The court found the agreement dispositive of the question of whether plaintiff was an employee for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Law.

We disagree. The facts here are not in dispute. Plaintiff's relationship with defendant fulfilled all the criteria of an employer-employee relationship in that defendant selected the interns, retained the power to dismiss them, and controlled and supervised their work (see, Galligan v. St. Vincent's Hosp. of City of N.Y., 28 A.D.2d 592, 279 N.Y.S.2d 886). Though financial remuneration was not paid to plaintiff, it has been held that where, as here, necessary training and experience gained at the hospital is required for graduation and licensure, training is a thing of value and the equivalent of wages (see, Miller v. Garford Labs., 172 Misc. 567, 16 N.Y.S.2d 279, affd. 262 App.Div. 838, 29 N.Y.S.2d 507, affd. 289...