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

September 07, 2011

Performing light duty may impact on eligibility for disability retirement

Performing light duty may impact on eligibility for disability retirement
Perez-Dunham v McCall, 279 AD2d 884

In June 1996, police officer Magarita Perez-Dunham applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits based upon an injury sustained in November 1993.

The application was rejected on the ground that although Perez-Dunham's disability prevented her from performing the full duties of a police officer, she was not disabled from performing the light duties that she had been performing for more than two years prior to her application.

The Appellate Division pointed out that in the event an applicant for disability retirement benefits is serving in a light-duty assignment, the application must be determined on the basis of the applicant's ability to perform a full-duty assignment unless the applicant has served in a light-duty assignment for two years or more prior to the date on which the application was filed.

If the applicant has performed light duty for two or more years, his or her application must be reviewed on the basis of his or her ability to perform the light-duty assignment.

The Appellate Division ruled that the testimony of the police surgeon that Perez-Dunham was assigned to light duty following her injury provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that she performed light duties for more than two years prior to her filing her application. While the surgeon conceded that petitioner might have returned to full duty briefly, this was consistent with Perez-Dunham testimony that before being assigned to light duty, she returned to full duty for about six months.

Finding that Perez-Dunham had been assigned and performed light duty for two or more years, the Appellate Division dismissed her appeal from the Comptroller's determination.

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.
NYPPL Blogger 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.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com