Petitioner, a retired firefighter, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits, alleging that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a result of his inhalation of toxins present on the fire apparatus that he serviced and cleaned after the equipment had returned from Ground Zero after "9/11".
Conceding Petitioner was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a firefighter, the New York State and Local Retirement System [NYSERS] denied Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits because it had determined that his disability was not related to any of the conditions set out in Retirement and Social Security Law §363-d.
A Hearing Officer subsequently found that NYSERS had “successfully rebutted the statutory presumption set forth in Retirement and Social Security Law §363-d, which finding was sustained by the State Comptroller. Petitioner appealed the Comptroller’s decision contending that the Comptroller had erred in concluding that Petitioner’s conceded incapacitation was not attributable to his diagnosed prostate cancer and, further, that the Retirement System failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
The Appellate Division disagree with Petitioner's contentions, noting that substantial evidence supported the Hearing Officer's and NYSERS’ findings that Petitioner's retirement “was not in fact occasioned by any of the conditions listed in Retirement and Social Security Law §363-d.”
Further, opined the court, “Substantial evidence also supports the alternative ground for the denial of [Petitioner’s accidental disability] application — namely, that the medical report submitted by the Retirement System's expert was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.”
Citing Matter of Hannon v DiNapoli, 226 AD3d 1122, the Appellate Division pointed out that the Comptroller “is vested with the authority to resolve conflicting medical evidence . . . and to credit one expert's opinion over another”. Again noting that the Comptroller’s decision “will be sustained if supported by substantial evidence", the Court said that it was satisfied that there was substantial evidence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption, thereby warranting the denial of Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division decision posted on the Internet.