Theroux v. Reilly, 2003 N.Y. Int. 0148 (Dec. 2, 2003).

LABOR LAW - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - HEIGHTENED RISK - GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 207-C - MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

ISSUE & DISPOSITION

Issue(s)

Disposition

SUMMARY

In three separate cases, municipal employees claimed that they were entitled to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. General Municipal Law § 207-c provides for the full payment of the regular salary of a police officer or other covered municipal employee who is injured "in the performance of his duties" or falls ill "as a result of the performance of his duties." Section 207-c covers police officers, firefighters, and other classes of municipal employees who routinely perform dangerous and stressful work on a daily basis. In each case, the Appellate Division upheld the municipality’s denial of benefits, relying on the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Balcerak v. County of Nassau, 94 N.Y.2d 253 (1999). The Court of Appeals reversed in each case.

In Balcerak, the Court stated that the goal of Section 207-c was to "compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the performance of special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties." Id. at 259. Here, the Court clarified its holding in Balcerak by noting that Balcerak was not an attempt to interpret the phrase "in the performance of his duties." Rather, Balcerak addressed the question of "whether a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board that an injury is work-related should, by operation of collateral estoppel, automatically entitle an injured employee to General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits." Id. at 256.

The Court stated that, in interpreting the phrase "in the performance of his duties", a court should use standard principles of statutory interpretation. The Court found that the text, legislative intent, and legislative history of Section 207-c indicated no intention by the Legislature to create a "heightened risk" standard for § 207-c benefits. The Court thus held that Section 207-c benefit eligibility does not turn on the nature of the specific task the employee was performing at the time of injury. Thus, consistent with White v. County of Cortland, 97 N.Y.2d 336 (2002), the Court held that the covered municipal employee only has to prove a "direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury." The Court further clarified that the word "duties" "encompasses the full range of a covered employee’s job duties." Therefore, the Court reversed the order of the Appellate Division in each of the three cases.

Prepared by the liibulletin-ny editorial board.