A police officer [Officer] suffered a number of injuries when he fell while descending a staircase in his precinct. Officer's application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied upon the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of §363 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.* Following a hearing and redetermination, the State Comptroller ultimately affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Officer commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's determination.
The Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller's decision noting:
1. Officer 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 decision "will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence"'
2. "An injury-causing event is accidental when it is sudden, unexpected and not a risk of the work performed".
3. A fall as a result of one's own misstep, without more, "is not so out-of-the-ordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental injury".
Although there was no dispute that Officer was engaged in the performance of his ordinary duties as a patrol officer at the time that he fell, he did not identify any defect in the stairs, which he used on a regular basis nor was he able to identify the substance or occurrence that "precipitated his fall." Officer's application for disability benefits under General Municipal Law §207-c "indicated that he simply 'lost [his] foot[ing]' on the stairs, while Officer's application for accidental disability retirement benefits indicated that he fell after he "stepped on a[n] unseen substance."
The Appellate Division said "Credibility determinations, as well as the resolution of any inconsistencies between the hearing testimony and documentary evidence, are matters for the Hearing Officer and [the Comptroller] to resolve". Given the inconsistencies in Officer's description of his fall, as well as his inability to identify a precipitating accidental event that was not a risk inherent in the work that he performed, the Appellate Division opined "the Hearing Officer rationally concluded that petitioner failed to prove that his fall was the result of anything other than a misstep."
Confirming the Comptroller's decision, the Appellate Division observed "... a fall occasioned by a misstep does not constitute an accident" and substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's denial of Officer's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
* Officer did, however, receive performance of duty disability retirement benefits when he subsequently retired
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.