Regan v. City of Hornell Police Dep't

• Decision Date: 15 January 2015
• Citation: 124 A.D.3d 994,1 N.Y.S.3d 519
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Richard A. REGAN, Claimant, v. CITY OF HORNELL POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Appellants, and City Of Geneva Police Department et al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

124 A.D.3d 994
1 N.Y.S.3d 519

In the Matter of the Claim of Richard A. REGAN, Claimant,
v.
CITY OF HORNELL POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Appellants,
and
City Of Geneva Police Department et al., Respondents.

Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Jan. 15, 2015.

1 N.Y.S.3d 520

Coughlin & Gerhart, LLP, Binghamton (Scot G. Miller of counsel), for appellants.

Buckner & Kourofsky, LLP, Rochester (Jacklyn M. Penna of counsel), for City of Geneva Police Department and another, respondents.

Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, GARRY, ROSE and LYNCH, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

124 A.D.3d 994

Appeals (1) from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed May 31, 2012, which ruled that claimant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed October 29, 2012, which denied a request by the employer and its workers' compensation carrier for full Board review.

In September 2001, claimant, a law enforcement officer with the City of Hornell Police Department (hereinafter HPD), was sent to New York City for six days in order to provide assistance at the World Trade Center site. In March 2010, claimant—who had since become employed by the City of Geneva Police Department (hereinafter GPD)—was arrested and charged with driving

124 A.D.3d 995

while intoxicated. Shortly thereafter, he began receiving mental health treatment, resigned from his employment with GPD and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits citing his time at the World Trade Center as the cause of his injury and naming HPD as his employer. He later registered his participation in the World Trade Center rescue operations with the Workers' Compensation Board (see Workers' Compensation Law § 162 ).

Following a hearing, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) found that claimant sustained an occupational disease in the form of posttraumatic stress disorder (hereinafter PTSD) and depression and set claimant's date of disablement as April 2010—the date of his first medical treatment relating to his injury. The WCLJ further found that GPD was the employer and that apportionment pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 44 applied to the claim. On appeal, the Board reversed, finding that claimant sustained an accidental injury on September 17, 2001, while employed by HPD, that the date of disablement was April 2010, and that Workers' Compensation Law article 8–A applied to the claim, thus resolving any issues with respect to timeliness and

1 N.Y.S.3d 521

notice (see Workers' Compensation Law §§ 163, 168 ). HPD and its workers' compensation carrier now appeal from the Board's decision, contending that claimant's activity at the World Trade Center site did not constitute participation in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations such that it would be covered by Workers' Compensation Law article 8–A, as well as from the subsequent denial of their application for full Board review.

We affirm. Workers' Compensation Law article 8–A "was intended to be liberally construed to provide a potential avenue of relief for workers and volunteers suffering ill health as a result of their efforts in the aftermath of the terrorists' attacks" (Matter of Williams v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 1203, 1204–1205, 887 N.Y.S.2d 286 [2009] ; see generally Matter of Smith v. Tompkins County Courthouse, 60 N.Y.2d 939, 941, 471 N.Y.S.2d 46, 459 N.E.2d 155 [1983] ). As is relevant here, Workers' Compensation Law § 161 provides that the phrase " ‘[p]articipant in World Trade Center rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations' means any...