Appellate Division Affirms Joint Employment and Special Mission Rulings in Police Officer’s Workers’ Compensation Case Against City and Contractor

The petitioner, a police officer employed with Northfield Police Department, filed a workers’ compensation claim against the City of Northfield and later against Asplundh Tree Expert for injuries sustained in an auto accident on March 31, 2021. On that day, the petitioner reported for a “volunteer extra traffic duty assignment” and checked out a police car to meet the Asplundh trucks. He was struck by another car as he attempted to follow the Asplundh trucks. In its answer to the petitioner’s claim, Asplundh denied joint employment and filed a motion to dismiss; Northfield opposed the motion.

The petitioner obtained an order approving settlement for 25% partial-total with a 12.5% credit on December 2, 2022. He re-opened his case on June 2, 2023, alleging a material worsening and need for additional treatment. After arguments in December 2023, the workers’ compensation judge issued an order denying Asplundh’s motion to dismiss. The judge noted Asplundh was required to pay the petitioner and hold Northfield harmless and to add Northfield to its certificate of insurance. He found this assignment began the moment the petitioner pulled out of the police building with his police car and that both Northfield and Asplundh were responsible. He indicated that Asplundh was a “joint special employer” and ordered them to reimburse Northfield.

Asplundh appealed, arguing the judge erred in finding that it was a “joint special employer” as there was no contract, the petitioner was not paid wages by Asplundh, the assignment was made by Northfield, and the petitioner did not interact with Asplundh employees. The Appellate Division rejected this contention, but first it addressed the special mission doctrine as raised by Northfield. The Appellate Division agreed that the petitioner was in the course and scope of his employment the moment he left the police headquarters, confirming his injuries were compensable under this doctrine.

As for the joint employer argument, the Appellate Division relied on the judge’s decision, which was supported by sufficient, credible evidence that the petitioner was a dual employee. Specifically, the petitioner served Northfield’s public interest to ensure the safe movement of traffic as well as Asplundh’s private interest of protecting its employees; therefore, the hold harmless agreement obligated both to share the expense of the workers’ compensation benefits. The Appellate Division ultimately affirmed the workers’ compensation judge’s order. 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 7, July 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}