A New York appellate court affirmed an award of death benefits to a widow whose husband died of a heart attack while working. The case is Matter of Polonski v. Town of Islip, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).
Mr. Polonski worked as a highway maintenance crew leader. He underwent spinal fusion surgery in May 2018 and did not return to work until January 2019. At his doctor's recommendation, he requested lighter duty both before the surgery and after returning to work. On January 17, 2019, his supervisor assigned him to a crew demolishing a facility bathroom. Mr. Poloski left work at 4 p.m., but he had to return at 1 a.m. on January 18 to help clear snow from the roadways. When he complained of fatigue that afternoon, he was permitted to rest in the break room. Mr. Polonski's co-workers found him unresponsive 20 minutes later, and he was pronounced dead at the hospital. The autopsy revealed the cause of death was a combination of atherosclerotic and hypertensive cardiovascular disease and acute oxycodone intoxication.
A workers compensation judge found Mr. Polonski's death was precipitated by the strain of the work he had performed the day before and on the day of his death and awarded benefits to his widow, Mrs. Polonski. That award was affirmed by the Workers Compensation Board (Board). The employer appealed.
On appeal, the employer's expert witness did not dispute that Mr. Polonski had died of a heart attack or that his work activities could have contributed to it. However, the expert asserted that the primary contributing causes had been the underlying heart disease and oxycodone intoxication, not the work-related strain.
A medical expert for Mrs. Polonski agreed that Mr. Polonski had preexisting heart disease, with a near-total stenosis of an artery pumping blood to the front of his heart. However, the work-related activities leading up to Mr. Polonski's death–demolishing a bathroom and clearing snow–had put a severe strain on his pulse and blood pressure, which led to the fatal heart attack. The expert acknowledged that oxycodone and preexisting conditions had played a role in Mr. Polonski's death, but was of the opinion that the performance of a significant amount of strenuous work in a short period of time had been a direct, contributing cause.
The court pointed out that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's decision in Mrs. Polonski's favor and referred to an earlier New York case, Matter of Kilcullen v. AFCO/Avports Mgt. LLC, 138 A.D.3d 1314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016), for support.
In Kilcullen, a man worked at a glycol processing facility at an airport, which involved producing glycol to de-ice aircraft and filtering the glycol out of the runoff water. On the night of his death, he was retrieving insulation to protect a frozen valve which, if gone unfixed, would have shut down the glycol facility. The man later collapsed due to a heart attack and did not regain consciousness before his death one week later. His widow was awarded workers compensation and death benefits. The employer appealed the award based on the man's preexisting conditions. A cardiologist testifying for the employer did not make a causal connection between the man's death and his work activities. A medical expert for the widow testified that, though the man's preexisting heart problems may have contributed to his death, the work-related activities were "significant contributing factors" to the fatal heart attack. When presented with the conflicting evidence, the Board resolved the issue in favor of the man's widow. The court, in affirming the Board's decision, found that "a heart injury precipitated by work-related physical strain is compensable, even if a pre-existing pathology may have been a contributing factor and the physical exertion was no more severe than that regularly encountered by the claimant."
The Polonski court stated there had been sufficient evidence for the Board to resolve the issue of conflicting expert opinions in favor of either party. The Board's decision to affirm the benefits was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The award of benefits to Mrs. Polonski was affirmed.
Editor's Note: Whether or not something is the proximate cause of a loss is a critical element in many insurance claims, whether dealing with property or injury claims. In this case, the plaintiffs made a compelling case that the cause of Mr. Polonski's death was work-related above and beyond his preexisting conditions.
Read More: