| Matter of Kopec v Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07976 [44 AD3d 1230] |
| October 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Claim of Jadwiga M. Kopec, Appellant, vDormitory Authority of the State of New York et al., Respondents. Workers' CompensationBoard, Respondent. |
—[*1] Stewart, Greenblatt, Manning & Baez, Syosset (David J. Goldsmith of counsel), forDormitory Authority of the State of New York and another, respondents.
Crew III, J.P. Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 7,2006, which ruled that claimant did not suffer an accidental injury arising out of and in thecourse of her employment and denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits.
Claimant, a project manager for the employer, ceased working in June 2002 and thereafterapplied for workers' compensation benefits alleging, among other things, that she was coercedinto participating in an undercover investigation conducted by the New York County DistrictAttorney's office into one of the employer's projects and, as a result, sustained various mentalinjuries stemming from work-related stress. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied thatclaim, finding that claimant had not suffered a compensable work-related injury. A panel of theWorkers' Compensation Board affirmed, prompting this appeal by claimant.
We affirm. The case law makes clear that mental injuries caused by work-related stress arecompensable only upon a showing by the claimant that the stress alleged to have caused the [*2]injury " 'was greater than that which other similarly situatedworkers experienced in the normal work environment' " (Matter of Guess v Finger Lakes Ambulance, 28 AD3d 996, 997[2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 707 [2006], quoting Matter of Spencer v Time WarnerCable, 278 AD2d 622, 623 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 706 [2001]). This inquiry, inturn, presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its determination, if supported bysubstantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed (see Matter of Bottieri vTravelers Ins., 309 AD2d 1100, 1102 [2003]).
Here, claimant testified, among other things, that she was coerced into participating in theDistrict Attorney's investigation, that she begged to be released from such obligation and thatcomplying with the District Attorney's directives regarding the manner in which she managed theproject under investigation was detrimental to her career. Suffice to say that the employer'switnesses presented a contrary view of the investigation and claimant's involvement therein,stating, among other things, that claimant was a willing and voluntary participant in theinvestigation, that she was told she could drop out at any time and that she never expressed anyhesitation or concern regarding her participation. Indeed, the employer's director of internalaffairs testified that, contrary to claimant's assertion, she never was required to continue her rolein the investigation, nor was she threatened with a loss of employment should she elect not to doso. In short, the Board was presented with two conflicting views of the underlying events and,given that it was free to credit the testimony offered by the employer's witnesses over that ofclaimant (see Matter of Thomasula vWilson Concrete & Masonry, 15 AD3d 796 [2005]), we are unable to discern any basisfor disturbing the Board's decision.
Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed,without costs.