Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
This case presents the question whether a claimant, suffering from a prior work-related permanent partial disability, is entitled to continue receiving workers’ compensation benefits during the period he or she is confined to a psychiatric ward for the criminally insane. This court holds that such confinement should not preclude claimant from receiving those benefits.
On May 5, 1959, claimant injured his back while employed in New York State. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently determined that claimant had suffered a permanent partial disability and awarded him benefits. Some time later, claimant moved back to his native Italy. On May 3, 1976, he was arrested in Torrice, Italy, for fatally shooting two persons and wounding a third. After claimant had undergone psychiatric examination, an Italian court declared him “acquitted of the crime of which he
Claimant’s former employer and its insurance carrier applied to the Workers’ Compensation Board for permission to suspend paying compensation to claimant during his confinement. The board held that claimant’s benefits should be suspended for the duration of his commitment. The Appellate Division, by a divided court, reversed and héld that claimant was entitled to continued benefits. This court now affirms.
The Workers’ Compensation Law in general was enacted “as a means of protecting workingmen and their dependents from want in case of injury” on the job (Matter of Post v Burger & Gohlke, 216 NY 544 , 553), and should “be interpreted with fair liberality, to the end of securing the benefits which it was intended to accomplish” (Matter of Petrie, 215 NY 335 , 338). Under certain circumstances, however, a worker who has suffered an impairment of wage-earning ability through a permanent work-related disability may lose the right to further workers’ compensation benefits.
It has been held that a claimant is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits while incarcerated after conviction of a crime (see Matter of Bilello v Eckert Co., 43 AD2d 192 ; Matter of Packard v Sperry & Sons, 39 AD2d 622 ). Not all confinements that remove a claimant from the labor market, however, deprive the claimant of the right to receive compensation for a prior work-related injury. A claimant who is in jail awaiting a criminal trial is entitled to benefits so long as the work-related disability continues (see Matter of Bilello v Eckert Co., 43 AD 2d 192 , 194, supra).
Likewise, a claimant who is voluntarily committed to a mental institution should not be deprived of continued compensation for his work-related permanent partial disability (see Matter of Papkoff v Feldman, 26 AD2d 140 , affd no opn 19 NY2d 932 ). Indeed, there is “no basis, in authority or in reason, for [the] unqualified conclusion that a
To penalize a worker who has suffered a permanent disability solely because he or she has subsequently been afflicted by mental illness would in no way further the goals behind the Workers’ Compensation Law. Indeed, the new malady most often will increase the importance of these benefits to the worker and his or her family (see Walsh’s Case, 227 Mass 341 ; Ward v Heth Bros., 212 Mich 180 ). Suspending benefits during periods of institutionalization for treatment of mental illness would only compound the hardship created by the illness itself. In addition, by discouraging recipients from seeking treatment for mental problems, suspension of benefits might well be counterproductive to the health of such injured workers. For these reasons, the commitment of a workers’ compensation recipient for treatment of mental illness should not in itself bar continued benefits, so long as the underlying work-related disability continues to exist. It is undisputed here that claimant’s permanent partial disability had not ended, and that the board’s determination was based solely on claimant’s court-ordered commitment.
The employer and carrier argue that claimant’s commitment is the equivalent of a criminal conviction barring him from continued workers’ compensation benefits (see Matter of Bilello v Eckert Co., supra). This contention finds no support in the determination of the Italian court. The court found him “not responsible due to total insanity” at the time of the shootings, and acquitted him of the criminal charges. For the purposes of this case, the court’s commitment of claimant to a mental hospital for a minimum of 10 years does not convert the court’s determination into a criminal conviction.
Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.
Cases cited
- Pallas v. Misericordia Hospital 291 NY 692 p. 393, p. 394
- Claim of Garner v. Shulte Co. 23 AD2d 127 p. 393, p. 394
- Claim of Bilello v. A. J. Eckert Co. 43 AD2d 192 at 194 p. 393, p. 394, p. 395
- In re the Will of Lindewall 287 NY 347 p. 393
- Rogers v. Decker 131 NY 490 p. 393
- In re the Arbitration between Sentry Insurance & Amsel 36 NY2d 291 p. 393
- Jordan v. Decorative Co. 230 NY 522 p. 393
- Claim of Mazziotto v. Brookfield Construction Co. 40 AD2d 245 p. 393
- Claim of Osowski v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services 78 AD2d 740 p. 394
- Claim of Bellotti v. Salvio 8 AD2d 552 p. 394
- Claim of Roberts v. General Electric Co. 6 AD2d 43 p. 394
- Claim of Gugino v. New York State Workmen's Compensation Board 31 AD2d 698 p. 394
- Claim of Papkoff v. Feldman 26 AD2d 140 p. 394, p. 395
- Claim of Post v. Burger & Gohlke 216 NY 544 at 553 p. 395
- In re the Claims of Petrie 215 NY 335 at 338 p. 395
- Claim of Papkoff v. Feldman 19 NY2d 932 p. 395