Landgrebe v. County of Westchester, 57 N.Y.2d 50 (1982)
An employer can only be reimbursed from a schedule award for wage payments advanced for the disability directly related to the injury that resulted in the schedule award, not for payments related to a prior, separate injury, even if the latter injury is found to be consequential.
Summary
This case addresses whether an employer can be reimbursed from a workers’ compensation “schedule award” for wage payments made during an employee’s initial disability when a later, consequential injury leads to the schedule award. The employee suffered a back injury, and the employer paid his full wages during his disability. Later, a recurrence of back pain caused a separate hand injury, resulting in a schedule award. The court held that the employer could only be reimbursed from the schedule award for wage payments related to the hand injury, not the initial back injury. This decision underscores that reimbursement must be tied to the specific injury underlying the schedule award, preventing employers from using the award to recoup unrelated prior expenses.
Facts
Donald Landgrebe, a Westchester County correction officer, injured his back at work on March 9, 1977. The county paid Landgrebe his full wages during his resulting disability, totaling $3,383.07. Landgrebe later suffered a hand injury when a recurrence of back pain, stemming from the original injury, caused him to fall while operating a snowblower at home. This resulted in the partial amputation of two fingers. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the hand injury was consequential to the original back injury and awarded Landgrebe $4,422.50 as a “schedule award” for the permanent loss of use of his fingers.
Procedural History
The Workers’ Compensation referee initially directed the carrier to reimburse the county in full from the schedule award. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this decision, allowing reimbursement only for payments advanced after the hand injury. The Appellate Division reversed and remitted the case. The Workers’ Compensation Board then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an employer who has paid full wages to an employee during a period of disability resulting from a work-related injury can obtain full reimbursement of these payments out of a “schedule award” granted for a different, though consequential, injury.
Holding
No, because reimbursement from a schedule award is limited to wage payments advanced for the disability directly related to the injury that resulted in the schedule award. The employer cannot recoup costs associated with the initial back injury from the subsequent hand injury award.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that while section 25(4)(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Law allows employers to be reimbursed for wage payments made during disability, this right is not unlimited. The purpose of the law is to aid injured workers, and reimbursement should not create a situation where an employee is penalized for a subsequent injury. The court distinguished this case from Matter of Ott v. Green-Wood Cemetery, noting that Ott involved a single industrial episode, whereas this case involved two distinct injuries. The court emphasized that the schedule award for the hand injury was meant to compensate for the loss of use of the fingers and was “replacement for the partial loss of a hand; in fact, in the context of such a serious condition, the wage loss here, only for two weeks, was insignificant. The “schedule award” then has to be seen as an award for a dignitary loss or as a cushion against a future earning capacity at a time when the security and continuity of an ongoing employment may be gone.” Permitting the employer to recoup costs associated with the original back injury from this award would undermine its purpose. The court also highlighted policy considerations, stating that courts should avoid arrangements that convert “an unreimbursable portion of a past advance into a lien against funds which may likely be needed by an insured worker during times of future and largely unconnected disability”. As the court observed, “the language of section 25 (subd 4, par [a]) of the Workers’ Compensation Law favors matching a reimbursement and an award when a particular event brought both about.”