Employee’s claim of constructive notice of a triggering event underlying his or her applying for disability retirement rejected

Employee’s claim of constructive notice of a triggering event underlying his or her applying for disability retirement rejected
Matter of Koebel v New York State Comptroller, 2009 NY Slip Op 07727, Decided on October 29, 2009, Appellate Division, Third Department

Teresa M. Koebel, a member of the New York State Employees’ Retirement System, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits based on her representation that she was disabled due to a “posttraumatic stress disorder that resulted from her observation of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 from a location in New Jersey and her subsequent performance of emergency management duties.”

The Comptroller denied Koebel’s application based upon her failure to file a timely written notice of her claims as required by Retirement and Social Security Law §63(c). Koebel appealed, contending that “the widely-known events of September 11, 2001 themselves satisfied the notice requirements of Retirement and Social Security Law §63(c),” i.e., the Comptroller had “constructive notice” sufficient to satisfy the statutory notice requirements.*

Supreme Court dismissed Koebel’s petition, which ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

In the words of the Appellate Division, “Because that statute requires written notice of '[t]he nature and extent of the member's injuries, and [h]is [or her] alleged incapacity' (Retirement and Social Security Law §63[c] [a] [3], [4]), and the events of that day would not give notice of [Koebel’s] particular injury or disability, Supreme Court correctly determined that those events were insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements.”

The Appellate Division ruled that Koebel had neither applied for retirement within the required one-year period nor demonstrated that her impairment came within either of the two categories of good cause listed in 2 NYCRR 331.2, rejection of her application was neither arbitrary nor capricious.**

* The Doctrine of Constructive Notice constitutes a “legal fiction” courts may use to hold that an entity received a required notice even though actual notice was not personally delivered to the entity.

** The Appellate Division noted that Koebel’s “untimely filing” for filing for Workers’ Compensation Benefits had been “excused,” but, citing Matter of Wilson v New York State & Local Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System, 288 AD2d 602, ruled that such action “was not binding on the Comptroller and did not preclude him from denying her retirement application.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_07727.htm