Light-Duty NY Worker Gets No Reduced Earnings Benefits Following COVID-19 Cutbacks

Where, after his work-related injury, a New York employee returned to light work for a different employer and then was laid off due to cutbacks related to the COVID-19 pandemic, he was not entitled to a reduced earnings award since his job loss was unrelated to his work-related disability, held a state appellate court [Matter of Coll v. Cross Country Constr., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 902 (Feb. 10, 2022)]. His remedy was to collect unemployment insurance benefits, if eligible, to replace his lost income that followed his pandemic-related layoff.

Background

In September 2016, the claimant sustained work-related injuries to his neck and left shoulder while employed as a laborer for a cement company. Thereafter, he was awarded workers’ compensation benefits at a temporary partial disability rate. In late February 2020, he returned to light-duty work at a reduced salary for a different employer as a school security officer. He received reduced earnings awards from that date and ongoing.

The claimant was laid off from that security officer position on June 30, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. His employer also notified him that it would not be renewing his employment for the upcoming school year because the school district was uncertain as to its staffing needs during the ongoing pandemic. Following a hearing, a WCLJ concluded that because the claimant lost his security officer job for reasons wholly unrelated to his work-related disability, he had no compensable lost time and was not entitled to reduced earnings awards after June 30, 2020. The Board affirmed and the claimant appealed.

Appellate Court’s Decision

The claimant argued that he was entitled to a reduced earnings award because his loss of employment was not voluntary. The appellate court acknowledged that he had not quit, but rather had been laid off. It stressed, however, that where, as here, a claimant’s loss of employment is due to a factor other than his or her work-related injury, he or she bears the burden of establishing by substantial evidence that his or her disability contributed to his or her continued unemployment. Reviewing the record, the court said that there was no evidence that the claimant’s continued unemployment was due in any respect to his work-related injury, such as an inability to perform a job. Thus, the Board’s determinations that the claimant’s loss of employment and ongoing unemployment were unrelated to his work-related disability, and that his unemployment was voluntary for purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Law, were supported by substantial evidence.