- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
MATTER OF KNAUB v. REALTIME BUSINESS SYSTEMS
Factual and Procedural Background
Claimant Sonia A. Knaub was employed as the sole office manager at Realtime Business Systems, Inc. On December 23, 1992, while waiting for a delivery of computer equipment arriving around 5:15 P.M., claimant offered to bring the delivery man's 18-month-old son upstairs and give him a cookie rather than leaving the child alone in the van. During this act, claimant injured her back carrying the child upstairs. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the injury arose out of and in the course of her employment and awarded benefits. The employer appealed this decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the claimant's activity of carrying the delivery man's child upstairs and giving him a cookie was within the course of her employment or was a purely personal activity.
- Whether the Workers' Compensation Board’s finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment is supported by substantial evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Matter of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, 67 N.Y.2d 246, 249 | Determining whether an activity is within the course of employment depends on whether it is "both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances." | The court applied this standard to assess claimant's activity of carrying the child as work related and reasonable. |
| Matter of Marthorne v. Home Attendant Serv., 207 A.D.2d 939 | Factual determination of whether an activity arises out of employment is for the Board's resolution. | The court deferred to the Board’s factual finding that the injury arose out of employment. |
| Matter of Fullone v. Borg-Warner Corp., 207 A.D.2d 931 | Supporting precedent for the Board’s authority and factual determinations in workers’ compensation claims. | Used to reinforce the Board’s decision and its evidentiary basis. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed whether the claimant's activity of carrying the delivery man's child upstairs was within the course of employment by applying the test from Matter of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, which requires that the activity be both reasonable and sufficiently work related. The claimant's duties included receiving deliveries, and her action was motivated by a desire to remain in the office while the equipment was delivered rather than to engage in a personal activity. The Workers' Compensation Board's factual determination that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment was supported by substantial evidence and thus entitled to deference. The court found no merit in the employer’s remaining contentions and affirmed the Board’s award.
Holding and Implications
The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision awarding benefits to claimant.
The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the claimant’s entitlement to workers’ compensation benefits for the injury sustained while carrying the delivery man's child during the course of her employment. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond affirming the application of existing legal standards to the facts of this case.
Claimant was employed as an office manager and was the company's sole, employee. On December 23, 1992, claimant waited for a delivery of computer equipment that arrived around 5:15 P.M. The delivery man arrived in an unmarked van accompanied by his 18-month-old son. Claimant offered to bring the child upstairs and give him a cookie while the equipment was unloaded, instead of leaving him alone in the van. Claimant injured her back while carrying the child up the stairs to the office. The Workers' Compensation Board, finding that claimant's accident arose out of and in the course of her employment, awarded claimant benefits. The employer appeals.
Whether an activity is within the course of employment or purely personal depends upon whether the activity is "both reasonable and sufficiently work related under the circumstances" ( Matter of Richardson v. Fiedler Roofing, 67 N.Y.2d 246, 249), a determination that raises a factual question for the Board's resolution ( see, Matter of Marthorne v. Home Attendant Serv., 207 A.D.2d 939). Claimant's duties as office manager included receiving deliveries. Claimant testified that she offered the child a cookie in the office, rather than leaving him alone in the van after dark, so that she could remain in the office while the computer equipment was delivered. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Board's finding, that claimant's accident arose out of and in the course of her employment is supported by substantial evidence in the record and should not be disturbed ( see, id.; see also, Matter of Fullone v. Borg-Warner Corp., 207 A.D.2d 931). The employer's remaining contentions have been reviewed and are found to be lacking in merit.
Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Alert