Yesterday, the Court of Appeals handed down another decision—Ruisech v Structure Tone— addressing the integral to the work doctrine. The doctrine recognizes that certain work assignments are, by their nature, dangerous but still permissible, and the particular commands of the Industrial Code may not apply if they would make it impossible to conduct the work.

The plaintiff in Ruisech was attempting to install a 500-pound glass panel into a metal channel cut into the floor of a construction site. He slipped on concrete pebbles—that he believed came from the installation of the metal channel—and sustained injuries to his spine. The plaintiff testified that he did not create the channel or the pebbles. He testified that the work was performed by a separate crew hired by his employer.

The Court concluded that the defendants failed to meet their initial burden on their summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. Rejecting their reliance on the integral to the work doctrine, the Court concluded that the defendant did not conclusively show that the pebbles were “‘inherent to the task at hand, and not . . . avoidable without obstructing the work or imperiling the worker’” (2024 NY Slip Op 104, *4 [2024] [citing Bazdaric v Almah Partners, LLC, 41 NY3d 310 (2024)]). The Court in Bazdaric, earlier in the year, clarified that a condition is “integral to the work” only if it is inherent to the task at hand and unavoidable without obstructing or endangering the worker.

Two other important points in the Ruisech decision are:

• Under Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d), (a) the pebbles could qualify as a “foreign substance” since they were neither part of the floor nor essential to its functionality, and (b) the pebbles allegedly caused a “slippery condition,” meeting the provisions criteria; and
• Under Industrial Code § 1.7 (e) (2), the pebbles could create a hazardous condition because the provision applies to “other hazards,” not just tripping.

The Court’s holdings in Ruisech and Bazdaric signal a narrowing of the integral to the work doctrine. Defense counsel can build their defense and reliance on the doctrine at the early stages of litigation during their investigation of the claim and questioning witnesses at depositions. The integral to the work doctrine is still alive and an excellent defense where the facts support its application.