Case File
When a New York City train conductor learned that a passenger on his train had fallen on the tracks and been run over by another train, the Workers’ Compensation Board reasonably found that the stress did not exceed what similarly situated conductors experience in the normal work environment.
Case
Matter of Williams v. New York City Transit Authority, No. CV-24-0860 (N.Y. App. Div. 06/11/26)
What Happened?
A New York City train conductor filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits contending that he sustained post-traumatic stress disorder following an incident when a passenger was discovered to have fallen between train cars and died.
A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge established the claim, but on review the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the stress experienced by the conduct was no greater than that which similarly situated workers experienced in their normal work environment. Therefore, the board found that the conductor did not sustain an accident within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law, reversed the WCLJ’s decision, and disallowed the claim.
The conductor appealed.
Rule of Law
Under New York law applicable to the incident in this case, while psychological and physical injury are compensable to the same extent, neither is compensable unless the claimant satisfies the separate elements that the injury was accidental and that it arose out of and in the course of employment.
Emotional stress-induced psychological injury is considered accidental only if the claimant established that the stress they experienced in the workplace was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment.
To determine whether a compensable accident has occurred, the board must consider whether the alleged stressor is one the claimant should reasonably and ordinarily be expected to encounter in the normal work environment, and is therefore non-accidental, or whether the stressor was instead an unusual, unexpected, or extraordinary part thereof and therefore accidental.
Workers’ Comp 101: After the Board decided the administrative appeal in this case, the New York legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Law, and under the updated law, the board “may not disallow a claim” for PTSD, acute stress disorder or major depressive disorder “upon a factual finding that the stress was not greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 10[3][c], as added by L 2025, ch 79, § 1).
What Appellate Division Said
Appellate Division highlighted testimony indicating that there was “always a possibility that you would be involved in a situation where your train strikes someone,” and the conductor testified that this was not the first time his train had struck an individual, as he was involved previously in two similar incidents.
“Given the foregoing, the Board’s factual determination that the stress experienced by claimant was no greater than that which other similarly situated workers experience in the normal work environment is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed,” Appellate Division wrote.
Thus, according to Appellate Division’s analysis, repeated exposure to similar incidents and the inherent risks of train operation supported the board’s conclusion that the stressor of the passenger falling and dying was not extraordinary.
Verdict: Appellate Division affirmed the board’s ruling.
Takeaway
Under pre‑2025 New York law, even highly traumatic events will not support a compensable mental injury where the Workers’ Compensation Board finds they fall within the ordinary risks of the job, particularly where the claimant has prior exposure to similar incidents.
