Cunningham v. State, 60 N.Y.2d 248 (1983)

Acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits or a Workers’ Compensation Board determination that an injury is accidental, employment-related, and compensable precludes a lawsuit against the employer, even for intentional torts.

Summary

This case addresses whether the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law bar claimants from suing their employer (the State) for intentional assault related to the Attica prison uprising. The New York Court of Appeals held that claimants who either received workers’ compensation benefits or had a Workers’ Compensation Board determination that their injuries were accidental and compensable are barred from suing the State, even for intentional torts. This is because applying for and accepting benefits or a Board determination triggers the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Claimants must seek reconsideration from the Board, not the courts.

Facts

These appeals stem from the Attica Correctional Facility uprising in 1971. Some claimants were survivors of deceased guards, seeking wrongful death damages, alleging intentional injuries inflicted by individuals under the State’s control. Other claimants were employees taken hostage who sought damages for intentional assault also inflicted by persons under the State’s control.

Procedural History

The claimants filed actions against the State. The State moved for summary judgment, arguing the Workers’ Compensation Law precluded these actions. The Court of Claims denied the motions. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the suits. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether claimants who applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits can maintain actions against the State for intentional torts related to the same injuries.
2. Whether claimants, for whom the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that their injuries were accidental, employment-related, and compensable, can maintain actions against the State for intentional torts, even if the State filed the claims and the claimants received indirect benefits.

Holding

1. Yes, because by applying for and accepting workers’ compensation benefits, claimants forfeit their right to maintain actions against the employer for intentional torts.
2. No, because a determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board that a claimant’s injuries are accidental is binding, even if the claimant did not apply for or accept benefits directly.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically Sections 11, 23, and 29(6). Section 11 states that workers’ compensation liability is exclusive and replaces any other liability. Section 23 states that a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board is final and conclusive. Section 29(6) makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy against the employer. The Court stated, “If the right to sue the employer has been stripped away by [workers’] compensation coverage, it is an arrogation of jurisdiction to consider a tort complaint on its merits.” The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Workers’ Compensation Board to determine factual matters and that claimants cannot circumvent this process by seeking resolution in the courts. Regarding the hostage claimants, the Court stated that the Board has discretion to process claims filed by either the employee or the employer, even if the claimant objects. The court cited O’Connor v. Midiria, stating that a Board determination that injuries are accidental precludes an action against the employer for intentional tort. The court noted that claimants are not without recourse, as they can petition the Board for reconsideration. However, they cannot undermine the Board’s determinations through a collateral attack.