Teacher’s Workers’ Compensation Appeal Based on Construction-Related Respiratory Issues
- posted: Aug. 16, 2025
Respiratory ailments can trigger some of the most complicated workers’ compensation disputes. There are numerous medical, behavioral and environmental reasons why someone might not be able to breathe properly. Pinpointing causation might require substantial medical evidence, and disagreements could exist about whether a claimant is able to perform their work duties.
The Third Department of the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division reviewed a workers’ comp claim involving a respiratory problem in the case captioned In re Hurley. Peter Hurley, a teacher from Long Island, alleged he suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and moderate persistent asthma. During the 2020-21 school year, the COVID-19 pandemic allowed him to work from home. When in-person instruction resumed the next year, he said after a few days that construction in the school building aggravated his respiratory conditions to the point where he could not work.
In response, the school reassigned him to a different location where no construction was taking place. However, Hurley did not return to work and his doctor filed documents saying that Hurley’s condition had changed, justifying the reopening of his workers’ compensation case. Upon review, a Workers’ Compensation Law judge denied Hurley’s claim, ruling that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the employment market. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision on appeal, which prompted Hurley to seek relief from the Appellate Division.
To support his case, Hurley provided reports from two allergists and a pulmonologist. They said that he could no longer do his job at the school because of exposure to allergens and dust. One of Hurley’s allergists, Dr. Morris Nejat, testified that he did not perform objective functional testing on Hurley, but had reviewed his medical records. Nejat further said that his opinion that Hurley could not return to work was based on his patient’s “subjective feeling.” A pulmonologist retained by the school district testified that Hurley could return to teaching onsite as long as he was not exposed to mold.
Based on the lack of objective evidence supporting Hurley’s claim, the appellate panel ruled for the school district. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of objective medical evidence in supporting workers' compensation appeals. While subjective experiences and self-reported symptoms remain important factors, particularly in conditions like asthma where individual experiences may vary, the absence of objective testing can complicate the adjudication process. For claimants and legal practitioners, the decision highlights the necessity of solidifying claims with comprehensive medical documentation and testing.
At Peter M. Cordovano, P.C., I have decades of experience successfully representing claimants in New York workers’ compensation appeals. You can rely on me for sound advice on the type of medical support needed to overturn an improper denial. For a free consultation, please call 845-640-3846 or contact me online. From my office in Highland, I serve clients throughout the state.
Teacher’s Workers’ Compensation Appeal Based on Construction-Related Respiratory Issues
- posted: Aug. 16, 2025
Respiratory ailments can trigger some of the most complicated workers’ compensation disputes. There are numerous medical, behavioral and environmental reasons why someone might not be able to breathe properly. Pinpointing causation might require substantial medical evidence, and disagreements could exist about whether a claimant is able to perform their work duties.
The Third Department of the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division reviewed a workers’ comp claim involving a respiratory problem in the case captioned In re Hurley. Peter Hurley, a teacher from Long Island, alleged he suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and moderate persistent asthma. During the 2020-21 school year, the COVID-19 pandemic allowed him to work from home. When in-person instruction resumed the next year, he said after a few days that construction in the school building aggravated his respiratory conditions to the point where he could not work.
In response, the school reassigned him to a different location where no construction was taking place. However, Hurley did not return to work and his doctor filed documents saying that Hurley’s condition had changed, justifying the reopening of his workers’ compensation case. Upon review, a Workers’ Compensation Law judge denied Hurley’s claim, ruling that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the employment market. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision on appeal, which prompted Hurley to seek relief from the Appellate Division.
To support his case, Hurley provided reports from two allergists and a pulmonologist. They said that he could no longer do his job at the school because of exposure to allergens and dust. One of Hurley’s allergists, Dr. Morris Nejat, testified that he did not perform objective functional testing on Hurley, but had reviewed his medical records. Nejat further said that his opinion that Hurley could not return to work was based on his patient’s “subjective feeling.” A pulmonologist retained by the school district testified that Hurley could return to teaching onsite as long as he was not exposed to mold.
Based on the lack of objective evidence supporting Hurley’s claim, the appellate panel ruled for the school district. This case serves as a reminder of the significance of objective medical evidence in supporting workers' compensation appeals. While subjective experiences and self-reported symptoms remain important factors, particularly in conditions like asthma where individual experiences may vary, the absence of objective testing can complicate the adjudication process. For claimants and legal practitioners, the decision highlights the necessity of solidifying claims with comprehensive medical documentation and testing.
At Peter M. Cordovano, P.C., I have decades of experience successfully representing claimants in New York workers’ compensation appeals. You can rely on me for sound advice on the type of medical support needed to overturn an improper denial. For a free consultation, please call 845-640-3846 or contact me online. From my office in Highland, I serve clients throughout the state.
