Matter of Delvalle v. New York City Police Dept., 68 N.Y.2d 1014 (1986)

For an injury to be compensable under Workers’ Compensation Law, it must arise both out of and in the course of employment; an injury sustained while off-duty at home, even when required to possess a service weapon, does not arise in the course of employment if the employee is not performing work-related duties.

Summary

This case concerns a police officer’s death caused by his wife accidentally shooting him with his service revolver while he was sleeping at home. Although departmental regulations required the officer to keep the weapon with him during off-duty hours, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the workers’ compensation claim. The court held that while the death arose *out of* the employment because of the regulation, it did not arise *in the course of* employment because the officer was not performing any work-related duties when the accident occurred. This distinction is crucial for determining compensability under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Facts

A New York City Police Department officer was required by departmental regulations to keep his service revolver with him at all times, even during off-duty hours.

While the officer was sleeping at home, his wife accidentally shot and killed him with his service revolver.

Procedural History

The Workers’ Compensation Board initially awarded benefits to the claimant (the officer’s widow).

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the claim.

Issue(s)

Whether the death of a police officer, caused by an accidental shooting with his service revolver at home while he was sleeping, is compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law when departmental regulations require him to keep the weapon with him during off-duty hours.

Holding

No, because while the death arose out of the employment, it did not arise in the course of employment, as the officer was not performing any work-related duties at the time of the accident.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that to be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an injury must arise both *out of* and *in the course of* employment, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 and Matter of Malacarne v City of Yonkers Parking Auth., 41 NY2d 189, 193. The court conceded that the death arose out of the employment because the regulation required the officer to keep the gun at home. However, the court found the death did not occur “in the course of employment, because the injury was not received while the employee was performing the work for which he was employed.” The court distinguished being “on duty 24 hours a day, in the broad sense of the term” from actually sustaining an injury “in the performance of his duty.” The court stated, “Decedent in this case was sleeping, not performing police duties at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed.” This distinction highlights that the mere requirement to possess a weapon does not automatically render every accidental injury compensable; the injury must occur while the officer is actively engaged in his duties. The court cited several cases supporting this principle, including Matter of Pucillo v Regan, 62 NY2d 736, and Matter of De Jesus v New York State Police, 95 AD2d 454.