Retirement System has the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption set out in the so-called “Heart Bill,” RSSL §507-b(c)
Matter of Rivera v DiNapoli, 2010 NY Slip Op 07852, Decided on November 4, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department
Although typically an applicant for accidental disability retirement benefits or performance of duty disability benefits has the burden of proof with respect to showing that his or her disability resulted from the performance of his or duties, such is not always the case.
For example, the Retirement and Social Security Law §507-b(c) sets out a rebuttable presumption that where an individual has "successfully passed a physical examination on entry into service as a correction officer" that did not reveal evidence of heart disease and later becomes disabled as the result of a heart condition sustained during employment, it is presumed that the disability was "incurred in the performance and discharge of duty, unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence."
Juan C. Rivera’s had successfully passed his physical examination when he began his employment as a correction officer. He subsequently suffered a myocardial infarction after falling ill while at work.
When it was determined that he could not return to work because of his resulting medical condition, Rivera applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
The New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS], however, denied his application, concluding that although Rivera was permanently incapacitated, his disability "was not sustained as a result of the performance or discharge of his . . . duties."
Ultimately the Comptroller sustained the ERS’s denial of his application for benefits and Rivera filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order annulling the Comptroller’s determination.
Under the circumstances, said the Appellate Division, ERS had the obligation to rebut the statutory presumption that Rivera's disability occurred as a result of his performance and discharge of his duties as a correction officer.
The Appellate Division concluded that ERS had rebutted the presumption that Rivera’s disability was related to his employment as a correction officer by presenting evidence of risk factors coupled with expert testimony that excludes an applicant's employment as a causative factor" and sustained the Comptroller’s decision.
The court said that considering the record as a whole, it found that ERS had “effectively rebutted” the presumption set out in RSSL §507-b(c) and thus Rivera’s application for benefits was properly denied.
The record indicated that ERS had relied on the opinion of a cardiologist who, after examining Rivera, concluded that while work-related stress "can aggravate the symptoms of coronary artery disease," Rivera's coronary artery disease "was not related to his employment as a correction officer." The cardiologist made reference to the fact that Rivera suffered from a variety of risk factors commonly associated with coronary heart disease, including obesity and hypertension.
The Appellate Division said that it had previously held "the [statutory] presumption is effectively rebutted when evidence of risk factors is coupled with expert testimony that excludes an applicant's employment as a causative factor," citing Bryant v Hevesi, 41 AD3d at 932.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07852.htm
NYPPL