IN RE: the Claim of Paula MAURO (2019)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed September 14, 2018, which ruled that claimant was not an employee of the American Red Cross and denied her application for workers' compensation benefits.

Claimant, a Volunteer Community Ambassador for a nonprofit charitable organization, was hit in the nose by a hand cart while loading materials into her car, and she subsequently sought workers' compensation benefits from the charitable organization.  Following a hearing, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied her application, finding that no employer-employee relationship existed.  The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed that decision, and this appeal ensued.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact for the Board to resolve and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Gallagher v. Houlihan Lawrence Real Estate, 259 A.D.2d 853, 853, 686 N.Y.S.2d 212 [1999]; Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Holimont, Inc., 247 A.D.2d 715, 715, 669 N.Y.S.2d 88 [1998], lv dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 888, 678 N.Y.S.2d 587, 700 N.E.2d 1224 [1998], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 755, 701 N.Y.S.2d 711, 723 N.E.2d 566 [1999]).  “In making that determination, relevant considerations for the Board include the right to control the work, the method of payment, the right to discharge and the relative nature of the work; however, no single factor is dispositive” (Matter of Lai Pock Lew v. Younger, 69 A.D.3d 1161, 1162, 893 N.Y.S.2d 367 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Keles v. Santos, 73 A.D.3d 1396, 1396, 901 N.Y.S.2d 759 [2010]).

Claimant testified, as well as marked on her claim for workers' compensation benefits, that she was a volunteer with the charitable organization.  Claimant acknowledged that she was employed by a restoration company, which encouraged volunteerism with the charitable organization, and that she would receive her full salary from that employer when participating in events for the charitable organization during her employment hours.  Claimant received no monetary compensation or any other form of financial or economic benefits from the charitable organization in exchange for her volunteer activity.  Although the record reflects that the charitable organization exercised some direction and control over claimant's volunteer activities, substantial evidence nevertheless supports the Board's determination that claimant was strictly a volunteer and that no employer-employee relationship existed that would entitle her to workers' compensation benefits (see Matter of Keles v. Santos, 73 A.D.3d at 1396–1397, 901 N.Y.S.2d 759; Matter of Glamm v. City of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Fire Dept., 54 A.D.2d 996, 996, 388 N.Y.S.2d 55 [1976], affd 42 N.Y.2d 1026, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 369 N.E.2d 10 [1977]; compare Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Holimont, Inc., 247 A.D.2d at 715, 669 N.Y.S.2d 88; Matter of LaCelle v. New York Conference of Seventh–Day Adventists, 235 A.D.2d 694, 652 N.Y.S.2d 352 [1997], lv dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 1085, 659 N.Y.S.2d 859, 681 N.E.2d 1306 [1997], lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 713, 729 N.Y.S.2d 440, 754 N.E.2d 200 [2001]; Matter of Long v. Schenectady County Young Men's Christian Assn. [YMCA], 227 A.D.2d 723, 642 N.Y.S.2d 96 [1996]).  As such, the Board's decision will not be disturbed.  Claimant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Clark, J.

Garry, P.J., Mulvey, Devine and Pritzker, JJ., concur.