Judicial review of a determination denying a petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits

Petitioner, a police officer, filed an application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits, alleging that he was permanently incapacitated therefrom due to injuries sustained to his neck and back after falling down a set of stairs. The application was denied, and Petitioner requested a hearing and redetermination. At the conclusion of the hearing that followed, during the course of which Petitioner, his treating physician and the physician who evaluated Petitioner at the request of the New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS] appeared and testified, the Hearing Officer upheld the denial, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties. The State  Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions, and Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Comptroller's determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Comptroller's determination, explaining:

1. Petitioner, as the applicant, bore the burden of establishing that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a police officer "as the natural and proximate result of a disability . . . sustained in such service";

2. The State Comptroller "is vested with the exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits";

3. The Comptroller's determination in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed; and

4. Conflicting medical testimony presented a credibility issue for the Comptroller to resolve and the opinion rendered by Petitioner's treating physician was not entitled to greater weight over that of the physician who evaluated Petitioner at the request of the ERS and the Comptroller was free to credit ERS' expert's opinion over that of Petitioner's, despite the treating physician familiarity with the Petitioner.

Thus, the Appellate Division opined that the Comptroller's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

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