Matter of the Claim of Michael Angelo v. Southwestern Central School et al.; Workers' Compensation Board
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Workers' compensation claim for workplace-contracted COVID-19 by a public school custodian; whether claimant showed specific exposure or workplace prevalence elevating risk beyond that of the general public.
The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) found the claim compensable, concluding the custodian’s public-facing role with students elevated his COVID-19 exposure risk.
The WCB’s award finding a compensable accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
Not supported by substantial evidence: no proof of high infection rates at the school or in the community, only brief and limited student interactions, and other non-work exposure possibilities.
Background
Michael Angelo, a high school custodian working 1:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., alleged he contracted COVID-19 at work. Regular classes ended at 2:45 p.m., with student athletes remaining until about 5:30 p.m. Angelo’s student contact was limited to brief hallway encounters (approximately 20 students passing while he mopped). During the period, no household member tested positive, but his then-spouse worked in-person and shopped for groceries, her son attended sporting events three times weekly, and Angelo attended weekly church services with about 40 people without wearing a mask. The record contained no data on infection rates at the school or in the surrounding community.
Lower Court Decision
A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim, finding no specific infected-coworker exposure and no evidence COVID-19 was prevalent in the workplace. On administrative review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, reasoning that Angelo’s public-facing custodial job with student contact elevated his risk and rendered the contraction of COVID-19 compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed the Board and remitted. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the Court held the record lacked proof of high infection prevalence in the school, Angelo’s student interactions were brief and not the kind of regular, consistent, and close public contact sufficient to show prevalence, and there were alternate non-work exposures. Thus, the Board’s finding of an elevated workplace risk was not supported by substantial evidence.
Legal Significance
The decision reaffirms that workplace COVID-19 claims are compensable only if the claimant proves either a specific workplace exposure or that COVID-19 was sufficiently prevalent in the work environment to present an elevated risk constituting an extraordinary event. Substantial evidence must show high infection rates in the workplace or significant, regular, and close public interaction; brief incidental contact and potential non-work exposures are insufficient.
To establish a compensable COVID-19 workplace injury, a claimant must provide concrete evidence of specific exposure or demonstrable workplace prevalence creating elevated risk; limited incidental contact and the existence of other potential exposure sources will not satisfy the substantial-evidence standard.