NY Board May Not Employ "Novel" Standard for Work-at-Home Injuries

In a decision that has important ramifications for other claims filed in the Empire State by employees working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a state appellate court reversed a decision by the state's Workers' Compensation Board that had denied the claim of a claims examiner working from home who alleged he sustained injuries while carrying unassembled office furniture upstairs at his residence during a lunch break [Matter of Capraro v Matrix Absence Mgt., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6171 (3d Dept., Oct. 22, 2020)]. The case was remanded for a determination of whether the claimant's activities were sufficiently work-related to support an injury claim.

Background

Claimant was hired to work from home as a claims examiner and was provided the necessary computer equipment by the employer. At some point, claimant inquired as to whether the employer would cover the expense of new office furniture. Although the employer informed claimant that it would not, claimant ordered a new chair, desk and drawer. The unassembled furniture was delivered in boxes on June 13, 2016, and claimant was allegedly injured as he carried the boxes upstairs to his home office during his lunch hour.

Claimant subsequently sought workers' compensation benefits. A WCLJ found that claimant's injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and denied the claim. The Board affirmed, with one member dissenting. Claimant sought mandatory full Board review, and the full Board upheld the WCLJ's decision, concluding that claimant's injuries were not sufficiently work related to establish the claim.

Appellate Court's Decision

Initially, the appellate court noted that while it was certainly true that an accidental injury must arise both out of and in the course of a claimant's employment in order to be compensable under the state's Workers' Compensation Law, there was no requirement that the employee's underlying activity be performed at the employer's direction or directly benefit the employer. For example, accidents occurring during a short break were considered to be so closely related to the performance of the job that they did not constitute an interruption of the employment. Nevertheless, the court added that the personal activity must be reasonable and sufficiently work related.

Board Introduced Rigid, New Standard for Those Working From Home

The court noted that the Board had "eschewed the foregoing principles in favor of a rigid new standard for employees working from home" [Opinion, p. 3]. Under this new standard, injuries would be compensable only if they occurred during regular work hours and while the employee was actively engaged in work duties as opposed, for example, to taking a short break or using the bathroom. The appellate court stressed that this novel standard was unsupported by precedent, was inconsistent with the remedial nature of the Workers' Compensation Law, and could not stand. The court added:

A "regular pattern of work at home" renders the employee's residence "a place of employment" as much as any traditional workplace maintained by the employer [Opinion, p. 3, citations omitted].

Here, said the court, the Board had determined that the injury occurred during the claimant's regular work shift. The Board should have used the long-established standard to determine compensability. Accordingly, the appellate court remitted the case to the Board with an instruction that it apply that standard and determine whether claimant, when moving the boxes, was engaged in a "purely personal" activity that was not "reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances."

Comment

While the injury involved in this case was a "pre-COVID-19" one, it stands for the principle that an injury by a home-based employee should be analyzed and determined using the same rules as those in place for employees who work at the employer's facilities. The court here did not go into great detail, but apparently the Board's decision indicated it would review home-based injuries in a different light, requiring additional work-relatedness before awarding benefits. In New York, it seems clear that no such "new" standard may be applied to those who work at home.