New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
In Matter of Aungst v Family Dollar, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a worker who contracted COVID-19 on the job could recover workers’ compensation benefits for that illness and for a later stroke that was claimed to be related to it. The case focused on how the Workers’ Compensation Board evaluates whether an illness arises out of and in the course of employment when the disease is widespread in the community and not tied to one single moment of exposure.
Background Facts
The claimant worked as a store manager for Family Dollar in April 2020, during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic. He worked full time in a busy retail store that remained open as an essential business. According to his testimony, his work required frequent and close contact with the public, either on the sales floor or while serving as a cashier. He said that the employer did not provide employees with face masks or sneeze guards until the middle of April 2020. He also explained that although customers were supposed to wear masks and keep distance, store employees were told not to enforce those rules.
The claimant tested positive for COVID-19 on April 23, 2020. About one week later, he suffered a stroke and was hospitalized for four months. He later filed a workers’ compensation claim, asserting that he contracted COVID-19 at work and that his stroke resulted from the disease. He testified that during the weeks before his diagnosis, he worked more than 50 hours per week, drove alone, lived alone, and had little contact with others outside work except for medical appointments where safety rules were followed. His neurologist opined that the stroke was connected to COVID-19 and that the claimant lacked common stroke risk factors.
Issue
The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the Workers’ Compensation Board properly found that the claimant’s COVID-19 infection and later stroke were compensable injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. A related issue was whether the Board’s “prevalence” framework was consistent with the Workers’ Compensation Law.
Holding
The Court held that the Board’s “prevalence” framework was consistent with the Workers’ Compensation Law and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the claimant’s COVID-19 and stroke were compensable.
Rationale
The Court began with the Workers’ Compensation Law. Under the statute, an employee is entitled to compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The statute also defines injury to include disease or infection that naturally and unavoidably results from an accidental injury. The claimant therefore had to show a causal link between the illness and the employment.
The employer argued that under older case law, a claimant seeking benefits for disease exposure had to identify a single act or event in the workplace that caused the illness. The Court rejected that narrow reading of the law. It explained that later decisions had already moved away from any rigid requirement that a claimant pinpoint one exact time and place of exposure. Instead, prior cases recognized that a compensable workplace accident may arise from repeated exposure over time if the exposure is work-related and greater than ordinary exposure faced by the public.
The Court discussed earlier cases involving disease and environmental exposure. In one case, a correction officer who was repeatedly exposed to an inmate’s tuberculosis over several months was allowed to recover benefits. In another, a teacher who was exposed to mumps in a classroom setting was awarded compensation. The Court also noted a case where a claimant developed asthma from repeated exposure to smoke and dust in the workplace. These decisions showed that the law does not demand proof of one isolated contact with a source of disease. Instead, the question is whether workplace conditions exposed the claimant to a risk that was greater than ordinary and whether the illness followed from that exposure.
Against that background, the Court addressed the Board’s “prevalence” framework. Under that approach, a claimant may establish a compensable workplace COVID-19 case by showing that the workplace created a significantly elevated risk of exposure. The Board described prevalence as evidence of environmental exposure in the workplace that made the level of risk extraordinary. In practice, that meant looking at the nature and extent of the claimant’s work activities, including frequent contact with the public or coworkers in an area where COVID-19 was widespread.
The Court concluded that this approach fit with prior precedent. It did not relieve a claimant of the burden to show a causal connection. Instead, it recognized that when a disease is spread through repeated contact with many people, proof of extraordinary workplace exposure may come from the conditions of the workplace itself rather than identification of one infected person. The Court said that the difference between exposure to one infected individual, several infected individuals, or many members of the public in a high-risk setting is a matter of proof, not a change in legal standard.
The Court then turned to whether the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. It emphasized that substantial evidence is a low threshold. The Board’s conclusion only had to be reasonable and plausible, not the most likely explanation. The Court does not reweigh the evidence. It only asks whether the Board’s inference had a rational basis.
On the question of whether the claimant contracted COVID-19 through his work, the Court found substantial evidence in the record. The claimant testified that he worked 50 or more hours per week in a busy retail store during a period when COVID-19 was spreading quickly in the community. He was in constant close contact with customers, many of whom did not wear masks or follow distancing rules. Employees were instructed not to enforce those rules. Protective masks were not provided to store workers until mid-April. The Court held that these facts supported the Board’s conclusion that the claimant’s workplace exposed him to a significantly elevated risk of infection.
The Court also pointed to evidence that reduced the likelihood of nonwork exposure. The claimant lived alone, drove alone, did not use public transportation, did not visit friends or family, and had only limited outside contact apart from medical appointments where safety precautions were followed. That evidence supported the Board’s finding that the infection likely came from work rather than from another source.
On the question of the stroke, the Court held that substantial evidence also supported the Board’s finding of causal relationship. The claimant’s treating neurologist stated that COVID-19 can cause blood clotting and stroke, that the claimant showed a pattern consistent with COVID-19-related stroke, and that he lacked typical stroke risk factors. The neurologist also ruled out other causes. Although the employer presented a contrary expert opinion, the Court explained that choosing between experts is for the Board, not the appellate court. Because the treating neurologist’s opinion was based on medical evidence and not speculation, the Board was entitled to rely on it.
The Court therefore concluded that both parts of the Board’s decision had a rational basis. The claimant had shown extraordinary workplace exposure to COVID-19 and had also shown that his later stroke was a consequential injury flowing from that disease.
Conclusion
The decision recognized that proof of workplace infection in a pandemic setting may come from the overall conditions of the job rather than from identification of a single infected customer or coworker. It also showed the deference courts give to the Workers’ Compensation Board when its findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Cases involving workplace illness, stroke, and disputed medical causation can raise difficult questions about proof, expert testimony, and the scope of available benefits. If you are dealing with injuries or medical complications that may be tied to workplace exposure, a New York workers compensation attorney at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help evaluate the facts and explain what legal options may be available.