In recent months, the Appellate Division has rendered several decisions notable in their effect on the rights of petitioners to receive Workers’ Compensation benefits. These decisions are particularly important for those representing respondents and their insurance carriers as they review claims in order to determine whether benefits should be paid or whether they have a sound or, at least, a good faith basis, for denying entitlement to
benefits. In Morales v. Green Brook Country Club, the petitioner was hit in the head with a golf club and sought Workers’ Compensation benefits. The accident happened at the employer’s golf course when the facility was closed. Petitioner was permitted, as part of his employment agreement, to use the golf course for his own enjoyment. In addition, he was provided living quarters and use of the pool. Petitioner was a kitchen worker.
Although the provision of the living quarters and use of the course and pool could be used in the computation of petitioner’s wages for determination of benefits, the Appellate Court held that the mere fact that they were provided by the employer as a personal benefit and that the injury happened on the employer’s premises did not change the fact the accident occurred during a purely personal activity and did not arise out of and in the course of employment. There was no employment-related aspect to the petitioner’s playing golf on his own time nor was there any benefit to the employer from this activity. The accident was held to be not compensable. In Kluge v. Reade Manufacturing, the respondent was requested to pay dependency benefits to the deceased worker’s grandson who lived with the father and the grandfather at the time of the grandfather’s death. The grandchild was  allegedly due dependency benefits based on the fact that the grandfather frequently stayed with the grandchild and that the grandchild derived significant benefit from living with the grandfather. The Appellate Division held that, although under certain circumstances a grandson can be a dependent under the statute, the facts in this case did not support such a conclusion. In Vara v. Himber Construction Corp., the employee was on route to a job site when he was killed in an motor vehicle accident. Although the respondent argued that the employee was not yet in the course of his employment, the Appellate Division held that , since the employee was paid for the expense of using his own car and that he was using a company cell phone at the time, conversing with a plumber regarding the work for that day, the accident did arise out of and in the course of employment and was therefore compensable. In Sager v. O.A.Peterson Construction Co., the Appellate Division held that an employee, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on his way to an early dinner, was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits since he was directed to take an early dinner by his supervisor so that he could return to his job site for overtime work. The Court clearly found that the employer derived a benefit from the petitioner’s break for dinner at that
time. However, there was a dissent in this case showing the court’s less than unanimous opinion regarding the gray area of the compensability of mealtime injuries during working hours.

– Harry McDevitt, Esq.