The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's denying the Plaintiff's petition seeking to annul the Medical Board's [Board] rejection of Plaintiff's applications for accidental disability retirement [ADR] or ordinary disability retirement [ODR]. The court said that the Plaintiff failed to show that Board's determination denying Plaintiff's applications was arbitrary and capricious or in violation of lawful procedure.
The Board, said the court, was entitled to rely on its own review of Plaintiff's medical records, including MRI reports, as well as its own examination of Plaintiff, all of which provided some credible evidence supporting the Board's finding that Plaintiff's conditions were not causally related to an October 10, 2013 incident in which Plaintiff claimed he was injured. In addition, the Appellate Division noted the "resolution of conflicting evidence was for the Medical Board", citing Matter of DeMeo v Teachers Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y., 180 AD3d 560.
As the Board had provided a "lengthy and fact specific recitation of the reasons for its determination and its mention of the principal's letter was not dispositive," the Appellate Division rejected Plaintiff's contention that "the Medical Board was biased against him because it referred to a letter from the [Plaintiff's] school principal in which the principal opined as to the extent of [Plaintiff's] injuries".
Citing James v National Arts Club, 99 AD3d 523, lv dismissed, 21 NY3d 886, the Appellate Division explained a "mere allegation of bias is insufficient" and Plaintiff did not provide a factual demonstration to support his claim and proof that rejection of his application for disability retirement benefits "was tainted by bias".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.