Johannesen v. New York City Dept. of Housing Preservation, 84 N.Y.2d 132 (1994)
An employee’s bronchial asthma, aggravated by prolonged exposure to excessive secondhand cigarette smoke in a confined work environment, can constitute a compensable accidental injury under the Workers’ Compensation Law.
Summary
Veronica Johannesen, an office assistant for New York City, developed bronchial asthma aggravated by years of exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke in her poorly ventilated office. Approximately half of her 50 co-workers smoked in a large room crammed with desks, and the ventilation system was inadequate. After her transfer requests were denied, Johannesen sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that her condition constituted an accidental injury. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the continuous exposure to secondhand smoke was an unusual environmental condition that exacerbated her pre-existing asthma, thus qualifying as an accidental injury.
Facts
Veronica Johannesen worked as an office assistant for the City of New York in a large room shared by approximately 50 employees. A significant number of these employees smoked cigarettes. The office was crowded, and the windows were typically closed due to smoke emanating from a restaurant below. The office ventilation system was also malfunctioning. Beginning in 1983, Johannesen started experiencing wheezing and coughing at work. By 1985, she was diagnosed with bronchial asthma aggravated by the tobacco smoke and dust in her workplace. Her doctor recommended a smoke-free environment, but her requests for a transfer were denied. In January 1986, she suffered two severe asthmatic attacks at work, requiring emergency hospitalization.
Procedural History
Johannesen sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found that she suffered from a compensable occupational disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded this finding, determining instead that she sustained an accidental injury due to repeated exposure to passive cigarette smoke. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision. The City of New York appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an employee’s bronchial asthma, aggravated by prolonged exposure to excessive amounts of secondhand cigarette smoke in a confined work environment, constitutes an accidental injury compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law.
Holding
Yes, because the continuous exposure to secondhand smoke in the claimant’s workplace constituted an unusual environmental condition that exacerbated her pre-existing asthma, thus qualifying as an accidental injury under the Workers’ Compensation Law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the remedial nature of the Workers’ Compensation Law and the wide latitude given to the Workers’ Compensation Board in determining whether a disabling condition constitutes an accident. The court distinguished this case from Matter of Mack v. County of Rockland, noting that Mack was an occupational disease case focusing on the nature of the work, while this case concerns an accidental injury related to the workplace environment. The court reasoned that an accidental injury can accrue gradually over time and that the claimant’s exposure to excessive secondhand smoke, coupled with her pre-existing asthmatic condition, created an unusual hazard. The court found that the two severe on-the-job asthma attacks requiring emergency medical attention satisfied the time-definiteness component of the accidental injury rule. The court cited Professor Larson, noting that compensation has been awarded in many jurisdictions for asthma developing gradually over time. Rejecting the employer’s argument that this ruling would open the floodgates to frivolous claims, the court stated that claimants still must demonstrate unusual environmental conditions or extraordinary events causing the accidental injury. The court also emphasized that a pre-existing condition does not preclude compensation if the employment causally aggravates or accelerates the condition. The Court stated, “Claimant worked in an office where the tools of her trade are papers, pens, files, computers and telephones. Cigarette smoke is surely not a natural by-product of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s activities and her employment role.”