Johannesen v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development
New York Court of Appeals
638 N.E.2d 981 (1994)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
In 1981 Veronica Johannesen (plaintiff), an office assistant, was assigned to work at the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (the employer) (defendant). The office had one room, and at least half of the 50 employees smoked cigarettes. The room was crammed with desks and file cabinets, forcing the employees to work close together. The office windows were kept closed, and the office ventilation system did not function properly. By 1983 Johannesen began wheezing and coughing at work, and in 1985 she was diagnosed with bronchial asthma aggravated by exposure to cigarette smoke in the workplace. Johannesen’s transfer requests to work in a smoke-free environment were repeatedly denied. In 1986 Johannesen had two sudden traumatic asthmatic attacks at work that required emergency medical treatment. Johannesen sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Employer argued that the average person would not view Johannesen’s bronchial asthma as an accidental injury because her asthma condition was solely an allergic reaction and did not occur in an unexpected or unusual circumstance. The employer argued that the absence of a catastrophic or extraordinary event disqualified the events from the accidental-injury category. Lastly, the employer argued that even if Johannesen’s asthma was an accident, the evidence was insufficient due to lack of time definiteness of the injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board found Johannesen had sustained an accidental injury. The appellate division affirmed. The employer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bellacosa, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.