An applicant for accidental disability retirement benefits injured while engaged in a personal activity determined not to have been engaged in performing the duties of the position. The police officer [Petitioner], had applied for accidental disability retirement benefits following her staining multiple injuries as the result of her "slip and fall" accident while exiting her patrol car "when she stopped for coffee".
Petitioner's applications were denied by the retirement system and, following a hearing, a Hearing Officer upheld the denial of both her applications for benefits, finding that the injuries she suffered were not sustained while Petitioner was engaged in performing the duties of her employment. The State Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's determination with respect to her applications for accidental disability retirement benefits.
The Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller's decision, holding:
1. The burden is on the applicant for accidental disability retirement benefits to demonstrate that his or her incapacitation was the natural and proximate result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law and sustained while in service;
2. The threshold issue of whether [a] petitioner was in service at the time
that his [or her] injury occurred turns on whether he [or she] was performing
job duties at the time of the injury*; and
3. The Comptroller "is vested with exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits, including the question of whether an accidental injury was sustained while in service," and, if supported by substantial evidence, the Comptroller's determination must be upheld.
The Appellate Division, noting that Petitioner testified that police officers
routinely stopped for coffee and food during their shifts, said the record
supports the finding that she was not directed or asked to do so by her
supervisor or was a part of her job duties. As substantial evidence supported the
Comptroller's determination that Petitioner was not injured while in service in
that she was engaged in a personal activity at the time she suffered injury, the Comptroller's decision must be upheld.
Further, said the Court, "Petitioner's reliance on precedent under the Workers' Compensation Law is misplaced, as decisions decided thereunder are not binding on [State Comptroller]".
* See Matter of Verille v Gardner, 177 AD3d 1068