221 A.D.3d 1222
N.Y. App. Div.2023Background
- Claimant Frank Aungst was a retail store manager working 50+ hours/week at a high‑volume store that remained open in March–April 2020 as an "essential" workplace.
- His duties involved almost constant direct contact with the public; masks/sneeze guards were not provided until mid‑April 2020.
- Claimant developed fever and tested positive for COVID‑19 on April 23, 2020; he suffered a left middle cerebral artery stroke on May 1, 2020 and was hospitalized for about four weeks.
- Claimant had no classic vascular risk factors (no hypertension, diabetes, smoking, or dyslipidemia) and continued to test positive for COVID‑19 during hospitalization.
- Vascular neurologist Dr. Sawyer testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that COVID‑19 caused the stroke; the carrier’s IME doctor reached the opposite conclusion.
- The WCLJ initially treated the claim as an occupational disease; the Workers’ Compensation Board treated it as a compensable accident (work‑related COVID‑19 contraction) and found the stroke consequentially related. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Aungst's Argument | Family Dollar's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was contracting COVID‑19 a compensable work accident? | Workplace contraction is an unusual hazard arising in course of employment due to public contact. | No specific workplace accident; no causal link to employment. | Yes — Board credited claimant’s testimony and found elevated workplace exposure; contraction was compensable. |
| 2) Did claimant meet burden without identifying a specific exposure date? | Prevalence/elevated risk from high public contact suffices under Board guidance. | Plaintiff must show specific exposure or insufficient proof of workplace prevalence. | Yes — substantial evidence that public‑facing duties created elevated risk; specificity not decisive. |
| 3) Was the stroke a consequential injury caused by COVID‑19? | Medical testimony (Dr. Sawyer) causally linked COVID‑19 infection to the stroke. | IME concluded stroke unrelated to COVID‑19 (possible false positive test). | Yes — Board credited claimant’s neurologist and found the stroke consequentially related. |
| 4) Did the Board properly weigh conflicting medical opinions? | Board may credit treating physician and draw inferences from record. | Carrier argued Board erred in preferring treating physician. | Yes — Board has authority to resolve conflicts; its credibility/medical determinations were supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Pierre v ABF Frgt., 211 A.D.3d 1284 (3d Dep’t 2022) (recognizes workplace contraction of COVID‑19 can be a compensable unusual hazard).
- Matter of Holder v Office for People with Dev. Disabilities, 215 A.D.3d 1201 (3d Dep’t 2023) (discusses Board guidance that either specific exposure or workplace prevalence/elevated risk may establish compensability).
- Matter of Dowdell v Office of Family & Children Servs., 121 A.D.3d 1140 (3d Dep’t 2014) (defines consequential injury as one directly and naturally resulting from a prior injury).
- Matter of Sullivan v B & A Constr., 307 N.Y. 161 (1954) (articulates standard for consequential injuries).
- Matter of Brennan v Village of Johnson City, 213 A.D.3d 1058 (3d Dep’t 2023) (confirms Board’s authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions).