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

October 07, 2011

Injury on the job may not qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits


Injury on the job may not qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits
Silver-Smith v McCall, 298 AD2d 696

Fred Silver-Smith, a court officer, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits as a result of an injury that he sustained in the course of physically restraining and removing an unruly prisoner from the courtroom where he was working. His application was rejected by the Employees' Retirement System because "the incident involved a risk inherent in [Silver-Smith's] employment and did not constitute a qualifying accident as that term is used in Retirement and Social Security Law Section 605-a."

Quoting from McCambridge v McGuire, 67 NY2d 563, the Appellate Division said that for the purposes of establishing a valid claim for an accidental disability retirement benefit, the individual must demonstrate that he or she was the victim of "a precipitating accidental event ... which was not a risk of the work performed."
Since Silver-Smith's injury was conceded to have occurred as the result of his having restrained a person who was threatening the peace and security of a court proceeding, and this activity was a regular, though infrequent, part of his duties, the court ruled that his injury "resulted from a recognized risk inherent in [Silver-Smith's] normal duties and thus was not an accident within the ambit of the statute."

Although the specific outburst which required Silver-Smith's intervention in this instance was abrupt and unexpected, the court said that the "maintenance of order by restraining unruly persons in the courtroom was a recognized part of his normal duties." Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that there is substantial evidence supporting the Comptroller's determination that Silver-Smith did not qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits.

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