Werner v. State of New York, 73 N.Y.2d 884 (1989)

A trial court must permit a defendant to amend their answer to assert a workers’ compensation defense, even if the motion is tardy, unless the plaintiff demonstrates significant prejudice resulting from the delay.

Summary

Werner, an employee, sued the defendant, the building owner and president of Werner’s employer, for injuries sustained during employment. Initially, the defendant did not assert a workers’ compensation defense. After jury selection, the defendant moved to amend the answer, arguing workers’ compensation was Werner’s sole remedy. The Supreme Court denied the motion based on laches (undue delay). The Appellate Division reversed, citing the rule in Murray v. City of New York requiring such amendments even if late. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal but clarified that the trial court retains discretion to deny the amendment if the plaintiff demonstrates prejudice that could have been avoided had the defense been raised earlier. Because Werner was aware of his employment status and received benefits, no such prejudice existed.

Facts

• Werner was injured during his employment at a building owned by the defendant.
• The defendant was also the president and sole stockholder of Werner’s employer (the lessee of the premises).
• Werner sued the defendant, alleging negligence.
• Werner applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits.

Procedural History

• Werner sued in Supreme Court.
• The defendant initially failed to raise a workers’ compensation defense in their answer.
• After jury selection, the defendant moved to amend the answer to assert that workers’ compensation was Werner’s exclusive remedy.
• The Supreme Court denied the motion based on laches.
• The Appellate Division reversed, holding the amendment should be granted.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a trial court has discretion to deny a motion to amend an answer to assert a workers’ compensation defense when the motion is made after jury selection.
2. Whether the plaintiff demonstrated sufficient prejudice to justify denying the defendant’s motion to amend.

Holding

1. Yes, because the trial court retains discretion to deny the motion if the plaintiff demonstrates prejudice resulting from the delay, showing that the prejudice could have been avoided if the defense had been timely asserted.
2. No, because the plaintiff was aware of his employment status and had received workers’ compensation benefits, so he could not claim prejudice or surprise.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that denying the amendment was an error but clarified the extent of the trial court’s discretion. The court relied on the principle that amendments to pleadings should be freely granted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice. The court stated: “Plaintiff was required to establish prejudice accruing to him as a consequence of defendant’s failure to timely assert the defense, and to include a showing that the prejudice could have been avoided if the defense had been timely asserted.”

The court emphasized that the plaintiff bore the burden of demonstrating prejudice. Because Werner was aware of his employment status and had already received workers’ compensation benefits, he could not credibly claim surprise or prejudice. The court implicitly recognized the policy consideration of preventing double recovery by an injured employee. By receiving workers’ compensation benefits and then pursuing a negligence claim against the employer’s principal, Werner was potentially attempting to obtain a double recovery for the same injury.