Recent NY Court of Appeals Workers’ Comp Decisions: WTC Death Claim Barred, PTSD Claims Denied, COVID-19 Prevalence Test Upheld

Three decisions dropped from the New York Court of Appeals in the last week.

1. Garcia v. WTC Volunteer. Nov. 20, 2025.

Claim for death benefits by a spouse of a volunteer at the World Trade Center site, filed more than two years after the death of her husband, was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division rejected the argument that Workers’ Compensation Law § 168 for WTC workers extends the time for asserting death benefits claims beyond the two-year statute of limitations in Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

2. McLaurin v. NYCTA. Nov. 24, 2025.

Four cases involving three transit workers and one teacher were combined for the purpose of this appeal regarding Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from exposure to COVID-19. The Court of Appeals held these claimants were not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, reversing the Appellate Division’s decisions. This was a close call, with four in the majority and three dissents. The Appellate Division held the claims were viable by using a standard that psychological or nervous injury precipitated by psychic trauma is compensable to the same extent as physical injury. The Court of Appeals reasoned that although the physical effects of COVID-19 could be established as a single accident, the Board’s initial determination that the test be based on the stress of workplace exposure experienced by claimants as comparable to the stress experienced by similarly situated workers in the normal work environment was the correct application of law, with substantial evidence, therefore the Board’s decision should not have been disturbed. The Court of Appeals noted that the legislature amended the Workers’ Compensation Law to provide that 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]). The Court of Appeals further noted, “By amending the statute in this manner, the legislature has determined that claims of psychological injuries should be evaluated under a standard more favorable than even the dissent’s novel standard.”

3. Aungst v. Family Dollar. Nov. 24, 2025.

In another COVID-19 case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision that a claimant’s stroke was a compensable consequential injury of COVID-19. The most significant issue in this decision is that the Court of Appeals accepted the use of the “prevalence” test which was challenged by the employer as incompatible with the Workers’ Compensation Law. After COVID-19, the Board devised a standard that if a claimant can show “prevalence” in the workplace through close contact with the public of significantly elevated hazards of environmental exposure, a claimant can establish COVID-19 injuries. This decision confirms once and for all that the “prevalence” test used time and again in thousands of workers’ compensation cases is a legitimate basis for determining COVID-19 cases.