A police officer [Petitioner] filed applications for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits in June 2014 based upon an incident that occurred on September 22, 2011. Petitioner alleged that he was injured when a rolling chair slammed into the back of a chair in which Petitioner was then seated, resulting in injuries to his back, as well as the development of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Petitioner returned to a light-duty position in January 2012 but stopped working in June 2013. Although the applications were initially denied, ultimately New York State and Local Retirement System [System] conceded that the September 2011 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that the accident caused Petitioner's disability. Following a hearing, however, the Hearing Officer upheld the denials, finding that Petitioner had failed to establish that he was permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of his light-duty assignment. The Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions, resulting in Petitioner initiating a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's decision.
Both parties agreed that the applicable standard is whether Petitioner was capable of performing the duties of his light-duty assignment (see 2 NYCRR 364.3 [b].
Petitioner's expert concluded that Petitioner's psychological condition was permanent and prevents him from returning to any form of police work, including his light-duty assignment. The System's expert, however, concluded that Petitioner was permanently disabled from performing his light-duty position with his police department, as returning to the location of the incident would trigger his condition, although Petitioner could perform a light-duty assignment elsewhere, provided certain conditions were met.
The Comptroller credited the System's expert and denied Petitioner's applications.
The Appellate Division, observing that the record indicated that there is no assignment available that complies with the limitations described in the testimony of the System's expert in Petitioner's agency, said it was undisputed that Petitioner is permanently incapacitated from performing his light-duty assignment due to his psychological condition.
Citing Matter of Lipsky v New York State Comptroller, 56 AD3d 1101, the court held that the Comptroller's determination that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of his assignment was "not supported by substantial evidence in this record and thus must be annulled."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Divisions decision posted on the Internet.