Determining an applicant's eligibility for accidental disability retirement benefits

Petitioner in this CPLR Article 78 action, a police detective and paramedic, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits claiming that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties as a result of injuries sustained in three incidents, one which occurred in July 2007, another which occurred in February 2012 and a last one which occurred June 2017. 

Petitioner's application was denied by the New York State Retirement System [System] based on its finding that the incidents did not constitute accidents within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363.*

Noting that an applicant accidental disability retirement benefits bares the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that the System's determination in this regard will be upheld "if supported by substantial evidence", the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Kubala v New York State and Local Retirement Sys., 220 AD3d 993, and other decisions, explained that for the purposes of accidental disability retirement benefits, "an accident is defined as 'a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact' " .

Further, opined the Appellate Division, "An injury which occurs without an unexpected event as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties, considered in view of the particular employment in question, is not an accidental injury".

With respect to the July 14, 2007 incident and the February 17, 2012 incident, the Appellate Division said it was not persuaded that the resulting injuries were compensable accidents. However, it reached reach a different conclusion regarding the incident on June 22, 2017, during which "the retractable portion of a stretcher jammed causing instantaneous pain and injury to [Petitioner's] shoulder and neck".

The Appellate Division opined that "Although extending the retractable head portion of the stretcher was no doubt part of [Petitioner's] job duties, the precipitating external event, i.e., the jamming of the retractable head section of the stretcher, was sudden, unexpected and not a risk in his ordinary employment duties" and appeared to have been caused by a malfunction in the equipment.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division**, ruled that denial of Petitioner's application with respect to the June 22, 2017, injury on the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363 was not supported by substantial evidence.

* Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer upheld the denial of Petitioner's application, finding that the underlying incidents were either a risk inherent in the performance of his duties or foreseeable and, therefore, did not constitute accidents for purposes of accidental disability retirement.

** Lynch, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part), agreed with the majority, but in his view the February 17, 2012 incident constituted "an accident, not unlike that [described] in Matter of Loia v DiNapoli, 164 AD3d 1513".

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