The New York state decision highlights the heavy burden placed on employers to prove intoxication was the sole cause of a work-related accident in order to deny workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
The New York State Court of Appeals upheld the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision that the employee’s injuries were compensable even though he was heavily intoxicated at the time.
The Arnold Co. decision in Jose Luján-Espinzo v. Electrical Illumination places a high burden on New York employers to prove drunk driving as the “sole cause” of an accident to deny workers’ compensation claims. , the court pointed out.
The workplace accident occurred when the employee, who was working alone at the time, fell approximately 8 feet from a ladder to the floor while unloading merchandise from a shelf. The employee suffered serious injuries from the fall.
Toxicology tests conducted at the hospital after the incident revealed that the employee was heavily intoxicated with alcohol at the time of the accident. Blood tests revealed that the employee had an extremely high blood alcohol level at the time.
In response, the employer contested the workers’ compensation claim filed. The company claimed that the accident was simply caused by the employee’s drinking. The employer argued that the employer should not be liable for workers’ compensation benefits for the injuries sustained by the employee in the fall because alcohol was the only contributing factor.
Decision of the Workers’ Accident Compensation Committee
The Workers’ Compensation Commission noted that alcohol was not the only cause of the accident, and there were several other potential contributing factors.
“Although alcohol may have contributed to the accident, as the Board found, the record shows that plaintiff’s fall was caused by the absence of another employee holding the ladder, simple scaffolding judgment. “Mistakes, the lack of safety handrails also reflect the risks inherent in working at heights, or at heights,” the appeals court’s decision said.
The board acknowledged that intoxication may have contributed to the incident, but the employer did not meet the “heavy burden” of proving it was the sole cause. According to the court, this high standard is necessary to overcome the presumption of liability for injuries arising out of or in the course of employment.
During the proceeding, expert witness Dr. Michael Holland testified about the negative cognitive and physical impairments caused by the plaintiff’s high blood alcohol level. However, he also acknowledged that “regardless of alcohol impairment, using unstable ladders or carrying objects on ladders increases the risk of falls and may contribute to falls.” ” he also said.
The Commission’s decision in this case has important implications for New York state workers’ compensation law. This law proves that even if alcohol played a role, it does not automatically preclude you from making a claim. Even if the worker was moderately intoxicated at the time of the accident, he or she may be eligible for workers’ compensation benefits if other factors contributed to the injury.
See the court’s decision here. &
