In March 2014, Petitioner, a police sergeant, filed an application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits alleging that he was permanently incapacitated due to injuries he sustained in July 2007, during a foot pursuit of a suspect through a wooded area and was struck in the left eye by a tree branch.
Treated at the scene for the injury to his eye, Petitioner went to an emergency room that same night and was cleared to return to full duty three days later. Petitioner ultimately retired in March 2014 and filed an application performance of duty disability retirement.
Although the New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System [System] conceded that Petitioner was permanently incapacitated and could not perform his duties of his position, the System denied Petitioner's application, "finding that his disability was not the natural and proximate result of an incident sustained in the service upon which his membership was based".
Petitioner requested a hearing and redetermination, during which Petitioner, his treating physician and the physician who evaluated Petitioner at the request of the Retirement System appeared and testified.
The Hearing Officer sustained the System's denial of Petitioner's application, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his permanent incapacity was the natural and proximate result of the July 2007 incident. Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the System's decision.
The Appellate Division confirmed the System's ruling, explaining that "In order to be entitled to performance of duty disability retirement benefits, petitioner bore the burden of demonstrating that he was incapacitated from the performance of duty as the natural and proximate result of a disability sustained in service", noting that "Where, as here, there is conflicting medical evidence, [the System] is vested with the exclusive authority to weigh such evidence and credit the opinion of one medical expert over another".
Pointing out that a court's determination in this matter is limited to ascertaining whether the System's determination it is supported by substantial evidence, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 219 AD3d 1649 and other cases, noted that "conflicting medical evidence presented a credibility issue for [the System] to resolve", and the testimony of Petitioner's treating physician was not entitled to any greater weight than that of the System's expert witness. Here, said the Appellate Division, the Hearing Officer specifically credited the opinion of System's expert over that of Petitioner's treating physician, finding that competent medical evidence supported the finding that the July 2007 incident "was not the cause of [Petitioner's] disability".
Given that the System's determination denying Petitioner's application was supported by substantial evidence, the Appellate Division said it found "no reason to disturb it".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.