The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York on Thursday ruled in a divided decision that a woman’s injuries sustained while stopping to scan her employee parking pass while driving into her employer’s building is not compensable.
A worker’s Compensation Law Judge found that Shelley Grover had sustained a work-related injury to his left shoulder, extending his arm to scan the passage of the kiosk at the entrance of the parking lot, according to the documents in the Article in the alleged Article. A. Grover v. State Insurance Fund, Workers’ Compensation Board. However, the Court of Appeal, the State Supreme Court in New York, Albany, United States Department of the Department of Labor, according to the court documents opened, according to the case, the incident was not due to be dismissed from the dismissal.
The registration did not provide any information about the employer, the location of the garage and the timing of the injury.
The final decision was divided into 3-2 with the majority approving the board’s resolution,, when it concluded that the claimant’s injury was irreparable, the Board found that the car park was also used by other publicly owned companies. in the same building as the employer. The Board also stated that the employer did not own or maintain the garage. These facts, which the Board lends to, have concluded that the employer does not reach the area where the claimant’s injury occurred. “
Two rulers in the ruling wrote that the private parking lot was under the building where the plaintiff was working, and his office was accessible by elevator through the garage.
Opposition judges said, kul Although some parts of the garage were open to the public, the plaintiff used a special section for employees in the building using a parking passage, Muh he wrote. Di Importantly, the employer assigned the person claiming a parking space in the garage and gave him permission to park for free; They wrote that mış there is a sufficient link between time and place ”between the use of the park facility that has been fully approved by the employer and the employer’s ability to compensate the victim in such a way that the casualty can be made in the vicinity of his work. justification of similar cases.
Legal warning !
The information, comments and suggestions there are not covered by investment advice. It is based on the author's personal opinions. These views may not fit your financial situation and risk and return preferences. For this reason, based solely on this information, investment decisions may not have the appropriate consequences for your expectation. Our Site is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages incurred by the investors as a result of the use of the information on the Site, deficiencies in the sources, damages incurred by profit, moral damages, or damage to third parties.