Can 75-Year-Old Meatpacker get Total Disability Reclassification?

What Do You Think?

In New York, an employee receiving permanent partial disability benefits may seek reclassification so that she can continue receiving benefits based on permanent total disability. When determining whether or how to oppose such a request, employers should know the factors that tend to sway decisionmakers one way or the other. 

In an illustrative case, the 75-year-old had limited education and had worked as a meat-wrapper at Waldbaum’s for 44 years. She injured herself at work and was awarded permanent partial disability not to exceed 450 weeks. Before that period expired, she submitted an extreme hardship redetermination request to be reclassified as permanent total disability. The reclassification would allow her to continue receiving benefits.

Her request for reclassification indicated the following:

• Her monthly income consisted of her workers' compensation benefits, Social Security disability benefits and modest pension benefits, including a small sum payable under her deceased husband's pension. 
• Her monthly expenses included rent, health insurance, medications, car payment, car insurance, cell phone, hearing aids, food, gas and credit card debt. 
• Absent workers’ compensation benefits, she would have less than $200 a month to cover her basic needs.
• She had a cancer diagnosis within the prior two years and a history of two COVID-19-related hospitalizations. 

In New York, where a claimant has lost more than 75 percent of wage-earning capacity, she may request, within the year prior to the scheduled exhaustion of benefits, that the Board reclassify her to permanent total disability due to factors reflecting extreme hardship.

The Board granted the request and the employer appealed.

Should employee have been reclassified to total disability?

A. No. The mere existence of a monthly shortfall isn’t enough to demonstrate that a claimant has extreme financial hardship.

B. Yes. Based on her age and work history, it was unlikely she would be able to secure additional income.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Epstein v. Waldbaums, No. CV-23-2205 (N.Y. App. Div. 05/01/25), which held that her circumstances demonstrated extreme hardship.

To ascertain whether a claimant has an extreme hardship, the Board considers the claimant's assets, monthly expenses, household income and any other relevant factors. Other factors can include the claimant's age education, employment prospects and medical restrictions .

The court pointed out that the claimant received no financial support other than workers' compensation benefits, Social Security disability benefits and modest pension benefits. She had no investments or savings. Further, the Board concluded that after paying rent, she would have less than $200 to pay expenses such as health insurance, medications, a car payment, car insurance, cell phone, hearing aids, food, gas and credit card debt.

Such expenses might not be so unusual or unexpected for someone on a fixed income, the court acknowledged. However, there were other factors to consider. These included her age, educational background, and health. Those factors, along with the fact that she had worked in a manual labor job for 44 years, made it highly unlikely that she would be able to obtain gainful employment. 

“[W]ithout her workers' compensation indemnity benefits, claimant's ‘financial circumstances would be dire’ and, therefore, [she[ demonstrated extreme financial hardship,” the court wrote.

The court found that the Board correctly reclassified her to PTD.

Lesson for employers and carriers: When deciding how many resources to devote to opposing a reclassification request before the Board or in court, employers should, as this case suggests, take a hard look at the employee’s:

• Age
• Educational background
• Health
• Funds available to cover basic expenses

Share This Article: