A correction officer [Petitioner] initiated this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to challenge to a determination of the County of Rockland Sheriff's Office [Rockland] denying Petitioner's application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c.
Petitioner had applied for benefits after allegedly sustaining an injury to his lower back during a "defensive tactics training session". His application for benefits was denied "due to a lack of medical documentation". Petitioner appealed and subsequently underwent "an independent medical examination" [IME] and the examiner issued a report and thereafter an addendum to the report.
Rockland issued a second denial of benefits on the ground that Petitioner did not sustain a causally related injury based on the IME report and addendum. Petitioner appealed Rockland's determination and requested a hearing.
A hearing officer was appointed and ultimately the hearing officer issued a determination rejecting Petitioner's application for General Municipal Law §207-c benefits due to a lack substantial evidence. Petitioner appealed Rockland's denial of his application for §207-c benefits.
Appellate Division annulled the hearing officer's determination and granted Petitioner's application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c, opining that the hearing officer's determination was not supported by substantial evidence
Explaining that "Judicial review of the subject determination is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence" and, citing Matter of Solano v City of Mount Vernon, 108 AD3d 676, the Appellate Division said that "Substantial evidence means more than a 'mere scintilla of evidence,' and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides".
The Appellate Division noted that "the hearing officer relied on the conclusions set out in the IME report and addendum, and determined that they constitute substantial evidence supporting the denial of the petitioner's application for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits." Although the IME report indicated that the alleged incident exacerbated Petitioner's preexisting lumbar spine condition, the IME examiner opined that the incident did not result in the Petitioner being disabled from work.
The Appellate Division, however, held that the IME examiner's opinion was conclusory and unsupported by the evidence. The court noted "upon being questioned as to whether [the IME examiner] had an opinion about whether the [Petitioner] experienced a causally related period of disability relative [to the] incident, [the IME examiner] responded that he could not say with certainty."
Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the denial of Petitioner's application for General Municipal Law §207-c benefits "was not supported by substantial evidence" and granted the petition at issue, annulled the hearing officer's determination and, in effect, approving Petitioner's application for benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.