Matter of Swartz v. Absolut Center for Nursing and Rehab

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Swartz v. Absolut Center for Nursing and Rehab

139 A.D.3d 1292, 30 N.Y.S.3d 592

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

DecidedMay 19, 2016

Docket521578

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 1292 (Matter of Swartz v. Absolut Center for Nursing and Rehab) 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

Matter of Swartz v. Absolut Center for Nursing and Rehab, 139 A.D.3d 1292, 30 N.Y.S.3d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Devine, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 23, 2014, which ruled that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.

Immediately following the end of her shift, claimant was in the employer’s parking lot and tripped on a trailer hitch on her parked car. She fell and sustained injuries to her right elbow and both hands. Claimant subsequently applied for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier controverted the claim, and, following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that claimant sustained a work-related injury and awarded benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. “To be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury must have arisen both out of and in the *1293 course of a claimant’s employment” (Matter of McFarland v Lindy’s Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2008] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Panarella v JP Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp., 78 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2010]; see Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 [1]). Moreover, “[w]hile on the employer’s premises, going to or coming from work is generally considered an incident of the employment” (Sicktish v Vulcan Indus. of Buffalo, 33 AD2d 975, 976 [1970]; accord Matter of Panarella v JP Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp., 78 AD3d at 1471; see Matter of Mercado v Schenectady City School Dist., 24 AD3d 846, 847 [2005]).

Here, the record reveals that claimant tripped and fell in the employer’s parking lot as she was preparing to leave at the end of her shift. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment (see Matter of Mercado v Schenectady City School Dist., 24 AD3d at 847; Matter of Camino v Chappaqua Transp., 19 AD3d 856, 856-857 [2005]; Matter of Evans v J.W. Mays, Inc., 25 AD2d 597, 598 [1966], lv denied 17 NY2d 423 [1966]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

Devine, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed October 23, 2014, which ruled that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment.

Immediately following the end of her shift, claimant was in the employer’s parking lot and tripped on a trailer hitch on her parked car. She fell and sustained injuries to her right elbow and both hands. Claimant subsequently applied for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier controverted the claim, and, following a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that claimant sustained a work-related injury and awarded benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. “To be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury must have arisen both out of and in the *1293 course of a claimant’s employment” (Matter of McFarland v Lindy’s Taxi, Inc., 49 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2008] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Panarella v JP Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp., 78 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2010]; see Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 [1]). Moreover, “[w]hile on the employer’s premises, going to or coming from work is generally considered an incident of the employment” (Sicktish v Vulcan Indus. of Buffalo, 33 AD2d 975, 976 [1970]; accord Matter of Panarella v JP Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp., 78 AD3d at 1471; see Matter of Mercado v Schenectady City School Dist., 24 AD3d 846, 847 [2005]).

Here, the record reveals that claimant tripped and fell in the employer’s parking lot as she was preparing to leave at the end of her shift. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination that claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of her employment (see Matter of Mercado v Schenectady City School Dist., 24 AD3d at 847; Matter of Camino v Chappaqua Transp., 19 AD3d 856, 856-857 [2005]; Matter of Evans v J.W. Mays, Inc., 25 AD2d 597, 598 [1966], lv denied 17 NY2d 423 [1966]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 1292, 30 N.Y.S.3d 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-swartz-v-absolut-center-for-nursing-and-rehab-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack