Case File
When a fire inspector/firefighter attempted to claim that he was traveling from one inspection site to another, an email and a map conspired to defeat his argument that he was on the clock and not engaged in personal activity when he became involved in a motor vehicle accident.
Case
Matter of McCarey v. DiNapoli, No. CV-25-1157 (N.Y. App. Div. 07/30/26)
What Happened?
A fire inspector/firefighter for a city in the State of New York was responsible for, among other things, conducting annual inspections of commercial properties and multifamily and residential units. After leaving an investigation site and while on his way to another inspection, the inspector was injured in a motor vehicle accident.
Twelve years later, he filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits, alleging that he was permanent disabled as the result of the injury. The application was denied and, following a hearing, a Hearing Officer upheld the denial of the inspector’s application, finding that, at the time of the accident, the inspector was not engaged in the performance of his ordinary duties as a fire inspector/firefighter.
The inspector appealed the case to Appellate Division.
Rule of Law
Under New York law, in order to be entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that his incapacitation was the natural and proximate result of an accident sustained while in service. Resolution of the threshold issue of whether a petitioner was in service at the time that his injury occurred turns on whether he was performing job duties at the time of the injury.
What Appellate Division Said
Appellate Division upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision, noting that although the inspector “claimed that he was traveling directly to the second site inspection at the time of the accident, emails from the employer show that petitioner’s shift had not yet commenced” and that a weekly activity report submitted at the hearing confirmed the locations of the inspections but did not reflect the time for which those inspections were scheduled.
“Significantly, although [the inspector] contends that he was traveling directly from the first inspection site toward the second inspection site at the time of the accident, a map contained in the record of the area in question reveals that the location of the accident was significantly off the direct route between the two inspection sites,” Appellate Division wrote. “Given the conflicting evidence as to whether [the inspector] had started his shift at the time of the accident, and the lack of explanation for his trip deviation or why he was at the site of the accident, [the state] was entitled to reject petitioner’s testimony in this respect as incredible.”
The map showed that the accident occurred well off the most direct route between the two inspection sites, undermining the inspector’s claim that he was traveling from one work assignment to the next.
Although this case involved a disability retirement claim rather than a workers’ compensation claim, the court’s analysis of work status, travel, and credibility offers useful lessons for claims professionals evaluating course-and-scope issues.
Verdict: Appellate Division found substantial evidence supporting the determination that the inspector failed to prove he was acting in the performance of his duties at the time of the accident. As a result, the denial of benefits was affirmed.
Takeaway
When a claimant asserts that an injury occurred while traveling between work locations, contemporaneous evidence may be more persuasive than testimony offered years later. Time records, schedules, emails, GPS data, mileage logs, maps, and route information can all help determine whether the employee was actually engaged in work duties or had deviated for personal reasons.cident supported direct travel between alleged job sites.
