ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

April 03, 2025

Applying for accidental disability retirement benefits

 The Petitioner, a police officer, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. His application was denied by the New York State Employees' Retirement System. Following a hearing, a Hearing Officer sustained the System's denial of Petitioner's application, finding that the underlying incident and injuries sustained by Petitioner arose from risks inherent in the performance of his duties as a police officer and, thus, did not constitute an accident for purposes of accidental disability retirement. 

The Executive Deputy Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's decision and Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Executive Deputy Comptroller's decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Executive Deputy Comptroller's determination, opining:

1. As the applicant, Petitioner bore the burden of establishing that his disability was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law;

2. The Executive Deputy Commissioner's determination that Petioner's disability was not the result of an accident will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole;

3. An event which is a risk inherent in the work performed is not an accident for purposes of [accidental disability retirement] benefits"; and, 

4. An event that is not a risk inherent in one's job must be a sudden, unexpected occurrence in order to amount to an accident.

 As the Court of Appeals explained, "a precipitating event that could or should have reasonably been anticipated by a person in [petitioner's] circumstances is not an accident for purposes of [accidental disability retirement] benefits". Thus, "an injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury".*

Consequently, "where the injury-causing event constitutes a risk inherent in a police officer's duties, it is not unexpected and, thus, not an accident" Petitioner's application was denied upon a finding that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363. 

* See 2024 NY Slip Op 06234

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.





April 02, 2025

Internet resources focusing on employment in the public service as of April 1, 2025

 

Providing an accommodation of a disability not strictly necessary for an employee’s performance of essential job functions may still be reasonable

Plaintiff, a teacher, appealed a decision by the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, granting a Central School District's [CSD] motion for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's claim that the CSD had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] when it failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability. 

Plaintiff conceded that "notwithstanding her disability-related pain", she was able to perform the essential functions of her job “regardless of the alleged denial of her accommodation” by CSD. Accordingly, the federal district court held that she failed to satisfy her burden of proving that she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation within the meaning of ADA.

Such a ruling, said the United States Circuit Court, Second Circuit, was error, noting "A straightforward reading of the ADA confirms that an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without the accommodation". Further, opined the Court, "an ability to perform the essential functions of the job is relevant to a failure-to accommodate claim, but it is not dispositive". 

The Circuit Court's decision noted that Plaintiff had worked for CSD for approximately 20 years and has suffered "for decades from post-traumatic stress disorder" [PTSD] related to sexual harassment and sexual assault by a supervisor in her former workplace and her PTSD symptoms "affected her neurological functioning, interfered with her ability to perform daily tasks, induced a stutter that impedes communication, and caused nightmares so severe she has awakened vomiting." 

Following a change in school administration, CSD began prohibiting teachers from leaving school grounds during preparation periods. When Plaintiff attempted to do so despite the new policy, she was reprimanded for insubordination and was told that "the documentation [Plaintiff] had on file was insufficient to establish her right to a reasonable accommodation". 

Rather than provide additional documentation, Plaintiff took paid sick leave and then requested leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act [FMLA].  Upon Plaintiff's return from FMLA leave, CSD granted her one of her requested breaks in the morning, plus a break in the afternoon on days when a school librarian could watch her students but when a librarian was unavailable, Plaintiff was unable to take an afternoon break. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Circuit Court's decision noted that Plaintiff had "used breaks to compose herself away from the workplace", an environment that tended to trigger her symptoms. 

The Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court erred by holding that an employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of her job without a reasonable accommodation is fatal to her failure-to-accommodate claim. Vacating the lower court's judgment, the Circuit Court remanded the matter to the District Court "for further proceedings" consistent with its opinion. 

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.



April 01, 2025

Counsel fees to a Claimant's attorney paid from a reimbursement made to the employer by the NYS Workers' Compensation Board

Claimant's application for Workers' Compensation benefits was not controverted by Claimant's employer or the employer's Workers' Compensation Insurance carrier and the Employer continued to pay Claimant's wages, initially as leave at full pay and subsequently as sick leave at half pay. 

Claimant returned to work and Claimant's attorney filed an application for counsel fees. The employer and the employer's Workers' Compensation carrier [jointly "Carrier"] filed an application for reimbursement for the wages that it had paid to Claimant as sick leave at full pay and as sick leave at half pay.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] granted awards for a temporary total disability for specified periods of time as a credit to the employer and the balance payable to Claimant. In a subsequent decision, the WCLJ approved counsel fees of $7,222.00 to Claimant's counsel, with $6,727 of that amount as a lien against the reimbursement award to the employer and the remaining $495 to be paid out of the money payable to Claimant.

The Carrier sought administrative review by the WCB, contending the WCLJ improperly approved counsel fees for Claimant's counsel as a lien on the amount of reimbursement awarded to the employer because there was no increase in the amount previously awarded or paid as is required under Workers' Compensation Law §24(2)(b). The WCB affirmed the WCLJ's decision, explaining because the WCLJ made an initial award that had increased the amount of compensation awarded and/or paid previously, it was proper under Workers' Compensation Law §24(2)(b) to award counsel fees in the amount of 15% of that award, "regardless of whether the awards were made as employer reimbursement." The Carrier appealed the WCB's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, explaining that Workers' Compensation Law §24, as relevant here, "governs the amount and manner in which attorneys and licensed representatives receive compensation for their representation of claimants." 

Noting that the law sets out, among other things, "a schedule for the amount of counsel fees based upon the type of benefits awarded to a claimant", the Appellate Division's decision, in particular, noted that the law provides that "[w]hen an award is made that increases the amount of compensation awarded or paid for a previous period or periods of temporary total or temporary partial disability, the [counsel] fee shall be fifteen percent of the increased compensation" and that such fees, when approved by the Board, "become a lien upon the compensation awarded . . . and . . . shall be paid therefrom only in the manner fixed by the [B]oard".

Further, the Appellate Division held that the WCB "did not abuse its discretion by directing that the counsel fees be made payable against the carrier's lien for reimbursement", citing §24[4].

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.



March 31, 2025

Applicant for accidental disability retirement benefits has the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law

In this action the Appellate Division was asked to review a determination of the New York State Comptroller denying Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a police officer, [Petitioner] applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, alleging that he was permanently incapacitated as the result of having fallen while inspecting equipment at the Employer's facility where he worked. The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System denied the application upon the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363.

In this action the Appellate Division is asked to review a determination of New York State Comptroller denying Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

The Appellate Division affirmed the findings of the Retirement System and the Comptroller, observing "As the applicant, Petitioner bore the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and [the Comptroller's] determination in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence".

Citing Matter of Yurko v DiNapoli, 122 AD3d 1047, and granting deference to the Comptroller's credibility determinations and given inconsistencies in Petitioner's testimony as to what he was doing at the time he fell and regarding the nature of the substance he claims caused his fall, the Appellate Division opined "substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination that Petitioner's injuries occurred in the ordinary course of his employment duties and that he failed to establish that his injury was the result of an accident, rather than his own misstep".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com