New York: Defendant Fails to Show Injured Bus Matron was its “Special Employee”

Plaintiff, a school bus matron employed by a nonparty, stated a claim for injuries allegedly sustained in an accident that occurred while she was working on a school bus registered to defendant, Boro Transit (“BT”), and driven by an employee of BT and defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff was BT’s "special employee,” so that her claims against BT and the driver would be barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of N.Y. Work. Comp. §§ 11 and 29(6), where defendants did not demonstrate that BT assumed exclusive control over plaintiff's work. In fact, the court noted that BT’s witnesses testified that bus matrons were supervised by management employees of another company, not by any employee of BT.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Mohammed v Kieszowski, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7591 (1st Dept., Oct. 26, 2017)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 67.01.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law