The following excerpt is from Golini v. Nachtigall, 343 N.E.2d 762, 38 N.Y.2d 745, 381 N.Y.S.2d 45 (N.Y. 1975):
The record reveals, without contradiction, that the medical services furnished decedent were provided as incidental to h employment and, under Garcia v. Iserson, 33 N.Y.2d 421, 353 N.Y.S.2d 955, 309 N.E.2d 420, the defense of exclusivity of remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Law, for injuries and wrongful death claimed to have been occasioned because of the negligence and malpractice of the coemployee defendant, was properly sustained. The mere fact that, here, some of the treatment performed by defendant was not on premises of the employing concern does not alter the relationship or constitute a distinction of relevance.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.