Summary
upholding Board's denial of an award to employee because injury was not sustained in the course of employment
Summary of this case from Reed v. Paramount Wire Co., Inc.Opinion
July 1, 1993
Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Board.
Claimant, a lieutenant for the Town of Ramapo Police Department in Rockland County, was involved in a motor vehicle accident at 7:30 A.M. on his way to work on February 19, 1988. Claimant was scheduled to work from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Claimant's regular assignment was to work inside the police station although under certain specific circumstances he might have to work outside. At the time of the accident, claimant was driving his own car. The Workers' Compensation Board denied claimant workers' compensation benefits finding that the accident did not occur in the course of his employment.
Although claimant contends that a determinative factor here is that he was within the geographic area where he worked as a police officer at the time the accident occurred (compare, Matter of De Jesus v. New York State Police, 95 A.D.2d 454, with Matter of Juna v. New York State Police, 40 A.D.2d 742), all of the evidence must be considered as it is not enough to have "`[a] purely fortuitous coincidence of time and place'" (Matter of Lemon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 72 N.Y.2d 324, 327, quoting Matter of Connelly v. Samaritan Hosp., 259 N.Y. 137, 139). Generally, accidents which occur during one's commute to and from work are not deemed to have arisen in the course of employment because "the risks inherent in [said commute] relate to the employment only in the most marginal sense" (Matter of Greene v City of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 44 N.Y.2d 322, 325; see, Matter of Fine v. S.M.C. Microsystems Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 912, 914; Matter of Lemon v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra, at 327). An injury is said to occur in the course of one's employment when it was received at a time "when the employee [was] doing the work for which he or she was employed" (Matter of Maltese v. New York State Criminal Ct., 176 A.D.2d 397, 398; see, Matter of Lemon v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra, at 327; Matter of Malacarne v. City of Yonkers Parking Auth., 41 N.Y.2d 189, 193) and some causal nexus existed between the employment and the injury (see, Matter of Lemon v New York City Tr. Auth., supra, at 327; Matter of Mintiks v Metropolitan Opera Assn., 153 A.D.2d 133, 137, appeal dismissed 75 N.Y.2d 1005).
Applying these standards to the facts presented, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board that the accident did not occur in the course of claimant's employment (cf., Matter of Callanan v. Town of Clarkstown, 191 A.D.2d 861). As such, the decisions denying claimant workers' compensation benefits must be upheld (see, Matter of Junium v. Bazzini Co., 86 A.D.2d 690).
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.