NY Court Affirms Death Benefits Following Injured Worker’s Suicide
A New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that awarded death benefits to a surviving spouse following the suicide of her husband, who had sustained a work-related injury to the head some two years earlier [Matter of Meager v. Saratoga County Sewer Dist., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310 (3d Dept. July 23, 2020)]. Acknowledging the deep split in the medical opinions offered in the case, the appellate court stressed that the Board was vested with the discretion to assess the credibility of medical proof and its resolution of such issues was to be accorded great deference, particularly with respect to issues of causation.
Background
Decedent sustained a work-related injury to his head in May 2015 and his claim for workers’ compensation benefits was thereafter established. Two years later, decedent was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after his family feared he had attempted suicide. After a week of observation and treatment, decedent was discharged. He died by suicide five days later. Claimant, his surviving spouse, filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. A WCLJ granted the claim, and the Board affirmed. The employer and its third-party administrator appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
After disposing of a procedural issue, the appellate court turned to the merits, noting that it was well settled that workers’ compensation death benefits may not be awarded when the injury has been solely occasioned by willful intention of the injured employee to bring about the injury or death of himself or herself (see N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 10[1]). Citing earlier decisions, the court said that with regard to suicide, workers’ compensation death benefits may be awarded only where the suicide results from insanity, brain derangement or a pattern of mental deterioration caused by work-related injury. Generally speaking, said the court, the causal relationship between an industrial accident and a resulting mental condition need not be direct and immediate. It is sufficient that the industrial accident is a contributing cause, even if it precipitated decedent’s preexisting mental condition.
Medical Testimony
A physician who had treated the decedent since 1996 testified that there was a noticeable difference in decedent’s personality, demeanor, speech, and ability to answer questions following the May 2015 industrial injury. The physician indicated the decedent complained of headaches, ringing of the ears, changes in vision, somnolence and bedwetting in the years following the injury. Acknowledging that decedent had preexisting mental health issues, the doctor nevertheless opined that decedent’s awareness of the inabilities and weaknesses that resulted from the 2015 injury, which impacted his ability to hold a job, helped promote and exacerbate his depression. The physician concluded that decedent’s suicide was a direct result of a two year degradation of decedent’s mental status. The physician concluded there was a causal relationship between the suicide and the work-related head injury.
The employer’s expert disagreed, attributing the suicide instead to mental health issues that predated the 2015 injury, as well as psychosocial issues unrelated to the incident. The employer’s physician found no causal relationship between the work injury and decedent’s death.
As indicated above, the court stressed that the Board had credited the opinion offered by claimant’s medical expert. Inasmuch as the Board was vested with the discretion to assess the credibility of medical proof, its resolution of such issues was to be accorded great deference, particularly with respect to issues of causation. The Board’s decision was, therefore, affirmed.