## Facts

- Veronica Johannesen worked as an office assistant for New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
- Her work area was a large room with about 50 employees, at least half of whom smoked; the space was crowded and employees worked in close proximity.
- Windows were kept closed due to smoke from a restaurant below, and the office ventilation system functioned poorly.
- By 1983, Johannesen developed wheezing and coughing at work; in 1985 she was diagnosed with bronchial asthma aggravated by workplace tobacco smoke and dust.
- A physician recommended a smoke-free environment, but Johannesen’s transfer requests were repeatedly denied.
- In 1986, she experienced two sudden asthmatic attacks at work requiring emergency medical treatment.
- She sought workers’ compensation benefits, claiming an accidental work-related injury caused by excessive secondhand smoke exposure in a confined, poorly ventilated office.
- The employer argued the condition was an idiosyncratic “allergic” reaction, arose from ordinary workplace conditions, lacked a catastrophic event, and was insufficiently time-definite to qualify as an accidental injury.

## Issues

1. Whether bronchial asthma aggravated by excessive secondhand smoke in a confined workplace may be classified as a compensable “accidental injury” under New York Workers’ Compensation Law.
2. Whether the absence of a dramatic event, the employee’s susceptibility, or a gradual onset defeats accidental-injury classification.
3. Whether two acute workplace asthma attacks supply the temporal definiteness required for an accidental injury finding.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division order upholding the Workers’ Compensation Board award.
- The court held that Johannesen sustained a compensable accidental injury based on asthma aggravated by excessive secondhand smoke in her specific work environment.
- The court concluded the record contained substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding, including workplace-condition testimony, corroboration by a co-worker, and medical evidence linking symptoms to workplace smoke and dust.

## Legal Principles

- An “accidental injury” may exist without a catastrophic event; ordinary work conditions can be accidental when, in their concrete manifestation, they unexpectedly injure a particular employee.
- Excessive or unusual exposure may be found from the totality of workplace circumstances (e.g., confined space, heavy smoking, poor ventilation, closed windows) even if “smoke in an office” can occur in other workplaces.
- Employer liability is not avoided merely because an employee has a heightened susceptibility; the employer takes the employee as found.
- Temporal definiteness for accidental injury can be satisfied by discrete, sudden disabling episodes occurring at work, even if symptoms developed over time.
- On judicial review, the Workers’ Compensation Board’s factual determinations are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld workers’ compensation coverage for smoke-aggravated asthma as an accidental injury where the claimant’s particular workplace conditions produced excessive exposure and resulted in time-definite, disabling attacks, and where the Board’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.


Johannesen v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 84 N.Y.2d 129, 638 N.E.2d 981 (N.Y. 1994)