CompFox AI Summary
Claimant, a former EMT, volunteered at the World Trade Center site after 9/11, assisting at a triage center and then at Ground Zero, though he was unaffiliated with any official agency. Years later, he filed a workers' compensation claim for various illnesses attributed to his exposure. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, stating he didn't meet the first response emergency services personnel definition due to lack of affiliation with an authorized volunteer agency. The court, however, found the Board's requirement unsupported by the Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A and its legislative history, concluding that the statute does not mandate such affiliation for a volunteer. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case for further consideration of the statutory time, location, and activity elements.
Claim of Hazan v. WTC Volunteer Fund is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Claimant, a former EMT, volunteered at the World Trade Center site after 9/11, assisting at a triage center and then at Ground Zero, though he was unaffiliated with any official agency. Years later, he filed a workers' compensation claim for various illnesses attributed to his exposure. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, stating he didn't meet the "first response emergency services personnel" definition due to lack of affiliation with an authorized volunteer agency. The court, however, found the Board's requirement unsupported by the Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A and its legislative history, concluding that the statute does not mandate such affiliation for a volunteer. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case for further consideration of the statutory time, location, and activity elements.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.