Matter of Johannesen v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 66 N.Y.2d 1011 (1985)
r
r
An occupational disease, for purposes of workers’ compensation, must derive from the very nature of the employment and its generally recognized risks, not merely from a specific condition peculiar to the employee’s place of work.
r
r
Summary
r
A psychiatric social worker, Johannesen, claimed workers’ compensation benefits for the aggravation of a pre-existing eye disorder, allegedly caused by exposure to cigarette smoke in a poorly ventilated workplace. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, finding that her condition was not an “occupational disease” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the injury stemmed from the environmental conditions of her specific workplace, rather than from a distinctive, generally recognized risk inherent in the occupation of a psychiatric social worker.
r
r
Facts
r
Johannesen, a psychiatric social worker employed by the New York City Department of Social Services, experienced an aggravation of a pre-existing eye condition. She attributed the aggravation to exposure to cigarette smoke in a poorly ventilated room at her workplace. There was no dispute that the aggravation occurred during her employment.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Administrative Law Judge initially ruled in favor of Johannesen, awarding her workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, denying the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision. Johannesen appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the claimant’s eye condition, aggravated by workplace conditions (cigarette smoke in a poorly ventilated room), constitutes an “occupational disease” under the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Workers’ Compensation Law.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the claimant’s injury was caused solely by the environmental conditions of her workplace and not by any distinctive feature of the occupation of a psychiatric social worker.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the Board’s denial of benefits. The court reasoned that, under the relevant statute at the time of the injury, an “occupational disease” is restricted to medical conditions resulting from the ordinary and generally recognized risks incident to a particular occupation. The court cited Matter of Paider v Park E. Movers, 19 NY2d 373, 377 and Matter of Goldberg v 954 Marcy Corp., 276 NY 313, 318-319, emphasizing that an occupational disease derives from the very nature of the employment, not a specific condition peculiar to the employee’s place of work.
r
The court distinguished between risks inherent to the occupation itself and conditions specific to the workplace. The court found that Johannesen’s injury stemmed from the environmental conditions of her specific workplace (poor ventilation and cigarette smoke) and not from any distinctive feature of being a psychiatric social worker. Therefore, the Board had a proper legal basis to deny her claim.
r
The court noted that the claim arose prior to a 1984 amendment to Section 2(15) of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which added a definition of