24-Hour NY Home Health Attendant’s Stop at Personal Physician’s Office Was Not a Deviation from Employment
A New York appellate court reversed a finding by the state's Workers' Compensation Board that had denied workers' compensation benefits to a home health attendant who provided care to one client on a 24/7 basis, and who sustained injuries when she and her wheelchair-bound client fell on a wheelchair ramp while the two exited the medical office of the home health attendant's personal physician [Matter of Sharipova v. BNV Home Care Agency, Inc., 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 615 (Feb. 4, 2021)]. The appellate court held there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the action of the attendant, in stopping by her physician's office, amounted to a personal deviation from her employment.
Background
Claimant worked for the employer as a live-in home health attendant, providing comprehensive care to one client, 24 hours a day, seven days per week. Claimant alleged that she suffered multiple injuries as a result of a work-related accident on October 29, 2018. On that date, claimant escorted her client on a customary walk, via the use of a wheelchair, and the two elected to stop at a doctor's office along their route. According to claimant, the office was that of her own physician and she stopped in to retrieve certain medical paperwork required by the employer. She also contended she wanted to confirm whether the physician accepted her client's medical insurance so that claimant could later schedule an appointment for the client. Upon exiting the office, claimant slipped and fell on the office's wheelchair ramp, resulting in significant injury to both the attendant and her client.
A WCLJ concluded that claimant's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment and that any momentary deviation from her routinely scheduled work contained elements of both personal and business-related matters. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier sought Board review, arguing that claimant's purpose in stopping at the doctor's office was purely personal and in violation of the employer's alleged protocol regarding personal activities during work hours. It also contended that claimant's self-serving testimony of a dual purpose was not to be believed. The Workers' Compensation Board agreed with the employer/carrier. Claimant appealed.
Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court observed that it was undisputed that it was routine for claimant to escort her client on four to five-hour walks on days when the client had no scheduled appointments, such as the day of the incident. The court added that the employer's representative admitted that it would have been impermissible for claimant to leave her client's premises without the client.
No Deviation
The appellate court stressed that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant's actions represented a deviation from employment and conduct specifically prohibited by the employer. The court said that without regard to whether claimant prospectively inquired about the acceptance of her client's insurance, claimant's act of briefly stopping while on a routine walk with her client, regardless of where that stop took place, simply could not be said to be purely personally or wholly unrelated to her work. Moreover, indicated the court, stopping at the doctor's office in order to collect the paperwork benefited the employer by allowing claimant to continue to provide round-the-clock care to her client, and to secure the documentation necessary to ensure that such care would not be interrupted in the future.
The Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, held the court. The decision was reversed and the matter remanded to the Board.