Workplace COVID-19 “Prevalence” Evidence Can Establish a Compensable Accident and Causally Related Death Under the Workers’ Compensation Law

Introduction

In Matter of Hogan v ABF Frgt. Sys., Inc. (Appellate Division, Third Department, Feb. 11, 2026), the court affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision establishing a death claim where a truck driver contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 and died shortly thereafter. The claimant was the decedent’s widow; the employer, ABF Freight System, Inc., appealed.

The central issues were (1) whether the decedent’s COVID-19 infection constituted a compensable “accident” arising out of and in the course of employment, (2) whether there was substantial evidence of causal relationship between workplace exposure and the death, and (3) whether the employer’s due process rights were violated by alleged reliance on testimony from another claim.

Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department affirmed. It held that contracting COVID-19 at work can qualify as an “unusual hazard” and thus a compensable accident under the Workers’ Compensation Law. It further concluded that the Board’s finding of work-related contraction and causally related death was supported by substantial evidence, relying heavily on credited testimony showing significant COVID-19 prevalence at the Brooklyn terminal in late March 2020 (including a shutdown/sanitization after numerous coworkers contracted the virus). Finally, the court rejected the employer’s due process argument, finding the Board did not rely on evidence outside the record.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1) COVID-19 contraction as a compensable “unusual hazard”

  • Matter of Martinez v Domino Foods, Inc. — Quoted for the proposition that workplace contraction of COVID-19 “reasonably qualifies as an unusual hazard” and is not the “natural and unavoidable result of employment,” making it compensable. Hogan uses Martinez as the governing framing principle for pandemic-era claims.
  • Matter of Fernandez v New York City Tr. Auth. and Matter of Leonard v David's Bridal, Inc. — Cited in support of the same compensability principle and, more importantly, for the evidentiary approach to proving work-related COVID-19 exposure.
  • Matter of Rottkamp v New York Univ. — Cited as consistent authority recognizing COVID-19 workplace contraction as potentially compensable and situating the inquiry within the Board’s fact-finding role.

2) Standard of review and the claimant’s burdens

  • Matter of Flores v Wellwood Cemetery Assoc., Inc. — Supplies the controlling appellate posture: whether a compensable accident occurred is a question of fact for the Board, and the court will not disturb the Board’s determination if supported by “substantial evidence.”
  • Matter of Miller v Transdev Bus on Demand LLC — Cited for the claimant’s burden to show the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and to demonstrate causal connection by competent medical evidence. It is also pivotal to the “prevalence” theory (below).
  • Matter of Fernandez v New York City Tr. Auth. — Also invoked (including in Footnote 3) to explain the limits of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption: it cannot establish that an accident occurred in the first instance and does not fully relieve the claimant of proving occurrence and work connection.

3) Proof of work-related COVID-19 exposure by “specific exposure” or “prevalence”

  • Matter of Miller v Transdev Bus on Demand LLC — The court reiterates that a claimant may satisfy the “arose in the course of employment” element by showing either (a) a specific exposure or (b) COVID-19 prevalence in the work environment creating an elevated risk constituting an “extraordinary event” (e.g., high workplace infection rates or substantial public contact in high-infection communities). Hogan applies this framework directly: the Board credited evidence of high workplace prevalence (multiple coworkers sick and a terminal closure for sanitization).
  • Matter of Angelo v Southwestern Cent. Sch. — Cited as additional authority for the “prevalence” pathway and used comparatively to situate the sufficiency of the proof in Hogan.
  • Matter of Leonard v David's Bridal, Inc. — Cited for the rule that a claimant need not pinpoint the exact date of COVID-19 exposure. This matters in infectious-disease claims where exposure is often inferential rather than tied to a single, identifiable event.
  • Matter of Pierre v ABF Frgt. — Used to reinforce both the “no exact date required” point and the acceptability of inferring work-related contraction from workplace conditions, particularly where the employer is the same and the factual pattern involves ABF’s environment.

4) Board authority over credibility and inference

  • Matter of Miller v Transdev Bus on Demand LLC — Reaffirmed for the proposition that the Board is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and may draw reasonable inferences from the record. Hogan turns on this principle because the medical testimony could not conclusively locate where the virus was contracted, making workplace-condition testimony and the Board’s inferences decisive.

5) Due process and reliance on materials outside the record

  • Matter of Pierre v ABF Frgt. — Cited to reject the employer’s due process claim, supporting the notion that, under comparable circumstances, the employer’s fairness arguments fail where the Board’s decision is grounded in the record and the employer is not meaningfully prejudiced.
  • Matter of Kaplan v New York City Tr. Auth. — Cited with “cf.” (contrast) as a reference point on due process concerns; Hogan distinguishes the situation because the Board did not rely on extra-record material.

Legal Reasoning

  1. COVID-19 can be an “accident” under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court treats workplace contraction of COVID-19 as potentially compensable because it constitutes an “unusual hazard” rather than a routine, inherent condition of employment. This aligns the infectious-disease event with New York’s “accident” concept for workers’ compensation purposes.
  2. Two permissible routes to proving work connection: specific exposure or workplace prevalence. Recognizing that pinpointing a single exposure is often impossible, the court reiterates that proof of high workplace prevalence creating an elevated risk can satisfy the “in the course of employment” component.
  3. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s inference of work-related contraction. The Board credited testimony that: (a) the decedent interacted closely with coworkers at the Brooklyn terminal, (b) no protective equipment (including masks) was used in March 2020, and (c) at least 12 coworkers contracted COVID-19 around the same period, prompting closure and sanitization. Even though medical witnesses could not conclusively opine where the decedent contracted COVID-19, the court held that the credited prevalence evidence, combined with the statutory presumption referenced by the court, was sufficient to support the Board’s finding that the decedent contracted COVID-19 at work and died as a result.
  4. The statutory presumption assists but does not create the accident. Footnote 3 underscores a recurring boundary in COVID-19 claims: Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumes that an accident occurring “in the course of employment” also “arises out of” employment, but it cannot be used to establish that an accident occurred in the first instance. The court’s analysis therefore depends on record proof of an employment-linked exposure scenario (here, prevalence), after which presumptions and inferences may operate.
  5. No due process violation. Although the WCLJ compared a witness’s testimony to testimony in a different claim, the court found the Board did not rely on extra-record evidence in its decision. The court also emphasized the employer’s lack of prejudice: it called the witness, and it was the employer of record in the other proceeding.

Impact

  • Reinforces “prevalence” as a practical evidentiary pathway in infectious-disease claims. Hogan strengthens the proposition that robust workplace-outbreak evidence can carry a claim even when medical experts cannot pinpoint the exact source of infection—so long as the Board’s inference is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.
  • Encourages fact-intensive proof focused on workplace conditions. Future litigants can expect greater emphasis on contemporaneous workplace infection rates, shutdowns, sanitization measures, PPE practices, and witness testimony about close contact, rather than only on clinical causation opinions.
  • Limits procedural attacks absent demonstrable reliance on extra-record materials. The decision suggests that due process challenges will likely fail where the Board’s rationale is record-based and the employer cannot show real prejudice from any reference to parallel proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Accident arising out of and in the course of employment”
A compensable event must both occur in a work-related time/place context (“in the course of”) and be connected to a work-related risk (“arising out of”). Infectious disease can qualify where workplace conditions create an elevated risk.
“Unusual hazard”
A risk that is not simply the ordinary, inevitable condition of doing a job. The court treats workplace COVID-19 exposure—especially during an outbreak—as such a hazard.
“Prevalence” evidence
Proof that COVID-19 was widespread in the workplace (e.g., many coworkers infected, closures, sanitization), supporting an inference that the claimant’s exposure likely occurred at work.
Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption
A legal presumption that helps connect an accident to employment once it is shown the accident occurred in the course of employment; it does not, by itself, prove the accident happened.
“Substantial evidence” review
On appeal, the court does not re-try the case; it asks whether enough relevant evidence exists that a reasonable mind could accept the Board’s conclusion—even if other conclusions are possible.
Why the medical testimony did not need to be conclusive here
The medical evidence established COVID-19 infection and COVID-related death. The “where contracted” question was resolved primarily through the Board’s credibility findings and workplace-prevalence inferences, which appellate courts generally will not disturb if supported by substantial evidence.

Conclusion

Matter of Hogan v ABF Frgt. Sys., Inc. confirms that workplace COVID-19 infection may constitute a compensable accident and that claimants can prove work connection through evidence of COVID-19 prevalence creating an elevated workplace risk—without identifying the precise exposure date or producing a definitive medical opinion pinpointing the source. The decision also signals that due process objections premised on alleged extra-record references will not succeed absent actual Board reliance on outside materials and demonstrable prejudice. In the broader landscape of New York workers’ compensation law, Hogan further entrenches a fact-driven, inference- permissive framework for infectious-disease claims decided by the Board and upheld on substantial-evidence review.