Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Ward & Gow: Workers’ Compensation Coverage Could Follow the Employer’s Hazardous Business

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 1, 2026

Ward & Gow v. Krinsky involved employees injured while supporting a wholesale fruit and vegetable business classified as hazardous under New York law.

The statute classified the employer’s business

Coverage extended to employees serving an employer whose principal business fell within a listed hazardous group, including supporting work incidental to that enterprise.

Different duties did not defeat coverage

Workers did not have to perform the characteristic hazardous operation themselves when their duties were part of conducting the classified business.

The classification was constitutionally permissible

The legislature could address industrial risks through reasonable occupational categories without proving identical danger for every covered task.

The awards were sustained

The Court rejected the federal constitutional challenge while leaving the state court’s construction of its compensation statute in place.

Key takeaways

• Start with the governing statute’s employer and employee definitions.
• Analyze how the worker’s duties relate to the covered enterprise.
• Separate statutory construction from constitutional classification.
• Check current jurisdiction-specific coverage rules.