Matter of Schmidt v. Wolf Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., 64 N.Y.2d 983 (1985)
The phrase “other attendance or treatment” in the Workers’ Compensation Law § 13(a) is to be broadly interpreted to include supervised swimming programs prescribed by a physician for rehabilitative purposes, even if a swimming instructor is not explicitly authorized to render treatment under other sections of the statute.
Summary
A deputy sheriff injured his back in a work-related motorcycle accident and, after failed treatments, his orthopedist prescribed swimming as rehabilitation, including swimming instruction. The insurance carrier denied the request. The Workers’ Compensation Board ordered the carrier to provide a swimming facility, which the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that supervised swimming qualifies as “other attendance or treatment” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13(a) when prescribed by a physician for rehabilitation, consistent with the law’s broad and humanitarian objectives.
Facts
Claimant, a deputy sheriff, sustained a back injury when a motorcycle collided with his patrol car during employment. He was hospitalized twice and underwent numerous treatments for back pain relief. When these treatments proved ineffective, his orthopedist recommended swimming at a local motel pool as a rehabilitative measure, noting the claimant required swimming instruction.
Procedural History
The insurance carrier rejected the orthopedist’s request for authorization for swimming. A referee then conducted a hearing and ordered the carrier to negotiate and provide a swimming facility. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the referee’s determination. The Appellate Division reversed, interpreting section 13 of the Workers’ Compensation Law as not authorizing supervised swimming. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the requirement to provide swimming facilities and instruction, as prescribed by a physician for rehabilitation, is authorized by section 13(a) of the Workers’ Compensation Law.
Holding
Yes, because Workers’ Compensation Law is to be liberally construed to accomplish its economic and humanitarian objects, and a supervised swimming program prescribed by an orthopedist for a back injury qualifies as “other attendance or treatment” under section 13(a), even if a swimming instructor is not explicitly authorized to render treatment under other sections of the statute since the doctor is administering the treatment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Workers’ Compensation Law must be liberally construed to achieve its economic and humanitarian goals, citing Matter of Merchant v Pinkerton’s Inc., 50 NY2d 492, 495. The court reasoned that the phrase “other attendance or treatment” in Workers’ Compensation Law § 13(a) should be broadly interpreted, as it had been in previous cases. The court cited Matter of Zylbergleit v Irving Rubber & Metal Co., 87 AD2d 929, where an elevator chair for a heart patient was deemed medical treatment, and Matter of Clark v Fedders-Quigan Corp., 284 App Div 430, where a “change of climate” was considered medical treatment. The court further noted that supervised swimming is a recognized rehabilitative measure, citing cases from Florida and Arizona. The court stated, “[i]t is of no consequence that a swimming instructor is not explicitly authorized to render treatment under other sections of the statute, inasmuch as a doctor will administer the treatment here.”