Rebutting the statutory presumption that an “on-the-job” injury or death was job-related shifts burden of showing job-relatedness to the claimant

To contact us Click HERE

Rebutting the statutory presumption that an “on-the-job”injury or death was job-related shifts burden of showing job-relatedness to theclaimant
Petrocelli v Sewanhaka Cent. School Dist., 54 AD3d 1143

Section 21 of the Workers’ Compensation Law sets out “a presumptions ofcompensability when an unwitnessed or unexplained death occurs during thecourse of one's employment.” The presumptions “in the absence of substantialevidence to the contrary are:

1. That the claim comes within the provision of this chapter;

2. That sufficient notice thereof was given;

3. That the injury was not occasioned by the willful intention of the injuredemployee to bring about the injury or death of himself or of another;

4. That the injury did not result solely from the intoxication of the injuredemployee while on duty.

5. That the contents of medical and surgical reports introduced in evidence byclaimants for compensation shall constitute prima facie evidence of fact as tothe matter contained therein.

However, these are rebuttablepresumptions and if there is substantial evidence to the contrary, the claimanthas the burden of establishing that the injury or death is causally related toemployment.

Denise Petrocelli’s husband died while coaching a high school basketball game.Mrs. Petrocelli filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits.

The death certificate listed as Mrs. Petrocelli’s husband’s cause of death as “aspontaneous rupture of the splenic artery with hemoperitoneum, due to portalhypertension complicating cirrhosis of the liver and chemotherapy for treatmentof a primitive neuroectodermal tumor of the right adrenal gland.” A Workers'Compensation Administrative Law Judge ruled that the Workers' Compensation Law §21presumption of compensability had been rebutted by the statements of the causeof death set out in the death certificate. Mrs. Petrocelli was directed toproduce evidence of causally related death. Once this was done, the employerwould have an opportunity to produce a consultant's report on the same issue.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding and Mrs. Petrocelliappealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board’s determination, ruling that “irrefutableproof excluding all . . . conclusions other than that offered by the employerthat the accidental injury was not work related” is not required to rebut aWorkers’ Compensation Law Section 21 presumption.

In this instance, said the court, evidence contained in the death certificateindicates that Mrs. Petrocelli’s husband’s death was directly caused by factorsnot related to his work. Accordingly, the court declined to disturb the Board'sfinding that the Section 21 presumption was overcome, requiring Mrs. Petrocellito come forward with proof of a causally related death.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07058.htm