In re Claim of Stagliano v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Claim of Stagliano v. New York Telephone Co.

172 A.D.2d 887, 568 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4207

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 887 (In re Claim of Stagliano v. New York Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Claim of Stagliano v. New York Telephone Co., 172 A.D.2d 887, 568 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 30, 1988 and January 17, 1989, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accident during the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

The evidence before the Workers’ Compensation Board supports its conclusion that claimant’s injury was not work [888]*888related. The record shows that on the Friday before his accident, claimant was told by his employer that he would not be permitted to work if he wore the shirt with the offending language on it. Although he was given the options of turning the shirt inside out, covering it, purchasing another shirt or going home to change the shirt, he chose to be suspended. On the following Monday, he again wore the shirt. On this day, he chose to go home to change the shirt and the injury occurred while en route back to work. The fact that claimant chose to go home does not qualify as an exception to the general rule that travel to and from work is not an incident of employment; claimant was not performing a special errand or a service for the employer at the time of the injury (see, Matter of Bennett v G. O. Dairies, 114 AD2d 574). There was no nexus between the journey home to change his shirt and any work to be accomplished, nor was there some other benefit to the employer (see, Matter of Broich v New York State Coll. of Optometry, 117 AD2d 868). Any conflicting inferences presented by the evidence were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Boscaino v Montefiore Med. Center, 90 AD2d 611). The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Decisions affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeals from two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 30, 1988 and January 17, 1989, which ruled that claimant did not sustain an accident during the course of his employment and denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

The evidence before the Workers’ Compensation Board supports its conclusion that claimant’s injury was not work [888]*888related. The record shows that on the Friday before his accident, claimant was told by his employer that he would not be permitted to work if he wore the shirt with the offending language on it. Although he was given the options of turning the shirt inside out, covering it, purchasing another shirt or going home to change the shirt, he chose to be suspended. On the following Monday, he again wore the shirt. On this day, he chose to go home to change the shirt and the injury occurred while en route back to work. The fact that claimant chose to go home does not qualify as an exception to the general rule that travel to and from work is not an incident of employment; claimant was not performing a special errand or a service for the employer at the time of the injury (see, Matter of Bennett v G. O. Dairies, 114 AD2d 574). There was no nexus between the journey home to change his shirt and any work to be accomplished, nor was there some other benefit to the employer (see, Matter of Broich v New York State Coll. of Optometry, 117 AD2d 868). Any conflicting inferences presented by the evidence were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Boscaino v Montefiore Med. Center, 90 AD2d 611). The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Decisions affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 887, 568 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-claim-of-stagliano-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack