Restoring an individual on Civil Service Law Section 71 workers' compensation leave to duty

An employee [Plaintiff] employed by a state agency [Department] suffered a work-related injury and was placed on workers' compensation leave pursuant to Civil Service Law §71. Plaintiff regularly submitted medical documentation supporting her assertion that she was unfit to return to her employment. Department then notified Plaintiff that as she had been absent for one cumulative year, she would be terminated from her position. Department also advise Plaintiff that she could apply for restoration to duty if she was medically fit and directed her "to submit medical documentation clearing her to return to work before an examination was scheduled."

Plaintiff, however, ignored this directive and scheduled the medical examination on her own.* Upon learning of this, the Department, apparently relying on 4 NYCRR 5.4(d)(1)** cancelled the appointment and subsequently terminated Plaintiff 's employment after she declined to submit the requested medical documentation to it.

Plaintiff then commenced the instant CPLR Article 78 proceeding alleging that [1] the Department violated the Civil Service Law and its regulations, [2] her termination was arbitrary and capricious and [3] her due process rights were violated. Ultimately Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's petition finding that it was not unreasonable, irrational or arbitrary for the Department to request certain medical information prior to making its preliminary determination as to petitioner's medical fitness to perform the duties of her position and further that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Department's request for medical documentation was an error of law.

Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's judgment, contending that 4 NYCRR 5.9 places no duty upon her to submit medical documentation in order to return to work. The Appellate Division disagreed, opining that 4 NYCRR 5.9(c)(2) provides that the employee has a "right to apply to the appointing authority pursuant to subdivision (d) of this section for reinstatement to duty if medically fit" (emphasis added by the court).

The Appellate Division explained that the requirement that employee then on §71 leave to initially produce medical documentation showing the employee is medically fit to return to work "prior to scheduling a medical examination promotes an efficient procedure, in a fiscally sound manner, that is rationally related to the Department's interest in returning only medically fit employees to their duties."

Noting that the record indicated that Plaintiff never asserted that she was medically fit to perform her duties prior to her termination and that the only medical documentation consistently presented to the Department for over one year was statements from Plaintiff's own physician attesting that she was unable to return to work, the Appellate Division concluded that the Department's determination was not arbitrary and capricious or irrational.

Addressing Plaintiff's claim that the Department's failure to provide her with a medical examination violated her due process rights, the Appellate Division said that the record indicates that Plaintiff "received a pretermination notice that set forth the reasons she was being terminated, explained that she could apply for reinstatement if medically fit, requested her to produce medical documentation showing that she was fit and informed her that she was entitled to a pretermination meeting." Thus, said the court, Plaintiff's  due process rights were satisfied as she was provided [1] with an explanation of the grounds for discharge; [2] given an opportunity to respond prior to her actual termination and [3] did in fact participate in a pretermination meeting.

* §71 of the Civil Service Law provides that an individual so terminated may, within one year after the termination of such disability, make application to the civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction for a medical examination. 

 ** 4 NYCRR 5.4(d)(1), Restoration to duty from workers' compensation leave, provides "(1) Upon request by the employee, the appointing authority, if satisfied that the employee is medically fit to perform the duties of the position, shall restore the employee to duty. If not satisfied that the employee is medically fit to perform the duties of the position, the appointing authority shall require the employee to undergo a medical examination, by a physician designated by the appointing authority, before the employee may be restored to duty. Prior to the medical examination, the appointing authority shall provide the designated physician and the employee with a statement of the regularly assigned duties of the position from which the employee is on leave."

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances -

The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click https://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

Disability Benefits for fire, police and other public sector personnel -

An e-book focusing on retirement for disability under the NYS Employees' Retirement System, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and similar statutes providing benefits to employees injured both "on-the-job" and "off-the-job." For more information about this e-book click https://booklocker.com/books/3916.html.

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual -

This e-book reviews the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. Click https://booklocker.com/books/5216.html for more information.

Judicial authority to review classification and compensation decisions of the State's Director of Classification and Compensation with respect to positions subject to the jurisdiction of the State's Department of Civil Service

As a result of the merger of the State's Banking and Insurance Departments into single agency, the Department of Financial Services, new agency commenced a title modernization initiative intended to, among other things, restructure and consolidate certain obsolete job titles, including, as relevant here, replacing the titles of Bank Examiner 1 (Salary grade 20) and Insurance Examiner 1 (Salary grade 18) with a newly created entry-level title, Financial Services Examiner 1 (Salary grade 18).

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review the determination of the New York State Civil Service Commission reclassifying and reallocating job titles at issue, Supreme Court dismissed the President of the New York State Public Employees Federation's  [Petitioner] application for judicial review.*

Petitioner, had challenged the decision of the New York State Department of Civil Service's Division of Classification and Compensation [DCC], objecting to the title restructuring, alleging, among other things, that the salary grade for the Bank Examiner 1 title was improperly reallocated from a salary grade 20 to a salary grade 18. Subsequently the New York Civil Service Commission confirmed DCC's determination.

The Appellate Division, noting that the "sole issue preserved for [its] review is whether the determination allocating a salary grade 18 to the newly created Financial Services Examiner 1 title had a rational basis," explained that §118 of the Civil Service Law vests DCC's Director with the authority "to classify and reclassify all positions in the classified civil service of the [s]tate and to make such revisions in the classification and compensation of positions as changes in the [s]tate service may require."**

The court then opined that "review of administrative determinations with respect to classification is limited and, unless the determinations are shown to be wholly arbitrary and capricious or without a rational basis, they will not be disturbed ... even if there are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion."

Finding no basis to disturb Supreme Court's judgment, the Appellate Division dismissed Petitioner's appeal.

* In 2011, the State of New York merged the Banking Department and the Insurance Department into the Respondent herein, the Department of Financial Services [See Chapter 62, §1 Part A of the Laws of 2011].

** The Appellate Division cited Citing Cohen v New York State Civ. Serv. Commn., 90 AD2d 884, in support of its determination.

Click Here to access the full text of the Appellate Division's decision.

Whether a claim for workers' compensation benefits has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve

Claimant, a safety and security officer for the employer, filed an accident report alleging that, while on patrol in June 2013, he was bitten by two ticks. Almost six years later, claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as the result of unknown tick bacteria entering his bloodstream.

The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding that the underlying claim was untimely and, in any event, that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish that claimant suffered from Lyme disease in the first instance or that such disease was causally related to his employment. The claimant appealed the Board's determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining that "Consistent with the provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §28, "a claim for workers' compensation benefits is untimely unless it is filed within two years of the date of the accident" at issue (Matter of Bennett v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 134 AD3d 1361, 1361 [2015]; see Matter of Jones v Servisair LLC, 180 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2020]). "Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349.

The full text of the Appellate Division's decision is posted on the Internet at: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_04404.htm

 

 

Whether a claim for workers' compensation benefits has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve

Claimant, a safety and security officer for the employer, filed an accident report alleging that, while on patrol in June 2013, he was bitten by two ticks. Almost six years later, claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as the result of unknown tick bacteria entering his bloodstream.

The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding that the underlying claim was untimely and, in any event, that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish that claimant suffered from Lyme disease in the first instance or that such disease was causally related to his employment. The claimant appealed the Board's determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, explaining that "Consistent with the provisions of Workers' Compensation Law §28, "a claim for workers' compensation benefits is untimely unless it is filed within two years of the date of the accident" at issue (Matter of Bennett v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 134 AD3d 1361, 1361 [2015]; see Matter of Jones v Servisair LLC, 180 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2020]). "Whether a claim has been filed in a timely manner presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and such determination, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed" (Matter of Kasic v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 94 AD3d 1349.

The full text of the Appellate Division's decision is posted on the Internet at: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_04404.htm

 

 

Internet items posted pro bono

Wild Thoughts by Julia Randall. A three-part series on wilderness ethics and management offers a comprehensive review of wilderness as a legal concept, an ecological condition and as a cultural phenomenon. Click on the following links to access Part I, What is Wilderness; Part II, For Whom Does Wilderness Exist?; and Part III, Wilderness and a Livable World. Ms. Randall's StoryMap can be found on the Adirondack Council’s website at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/39efc4883ac348a09fbd03a0f2c6c78f

Combating on the job misbehavior: An “app” (the #NotMe app) employers can make available to their personnel permitting the easy and timely submission of complaints of alleged supervisor or co-worker misconduct to personnel officers, human resource teams, compliance officers or designated individuals. Click on https://www.not-me.com/organizations for information concerning this program.

Concerning the viral evolution of COVID-19: Science Magazine e-Letter had posted NYPPL's Science Consultant Robert Michaels' item concerning "Viral evolution may herald new pandemic phase.” Click here to read Dr. Michaels' comments.

Sexual Harassment is a form of unlawful discrimination: New York State's Internet guidelines addressing employer obligations to combat sexual harassment in the workplace is at: https://www.ny.gov/programs/combating-sexual-harassment-workplace

The Steel Bar is the epic story of the rise and fall and rebirth of the Pittsburgh lawyer, from the earliest days of the Pittsburgh bar to the modern era, against the backdrop of American history." More at https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-steel-bar-pittsburgh-lawyers-and_28.html

Contaminants of Emergent Concern was discussed by Dr. Robert A. Michaels [bam@ramtrac.com] at the New York State Bar Association, Energy and Environmental Law Section on January 31, 2020. Dr. Michaels' remarks are posted for viewing/downloading at no charge at the following URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339055672_Legacy_Contaminants_of_Emergent_Concern. Other articles addressing environmental issues by Dr. Michaels are posted on on the Internet at: https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2020/01/articles-by-dr-robert-michaels-nypers.html

A CyberCemetery: The University of North Texas Libraries and the U.S. Government Printing Office, as part of the Federal Depository Library Program, created a partnership to provide permanent public access to the Internet sites and publications of defunct U.S.government agencies and commissions. Named the "CyberCemetery" by early users of the site, information about the collection is posted on the Internet at: https://library.unt.edu/digital-projects-unit/web-archiving/; the latest additions to the collection are posted at: https://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/GDCC/#latest

 

Reviewing a determination of the State Comptroller denying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

In September 2015, petitioner — a police detective — filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits alleging that he was permanently disabled as a result of injuries to, among other things, his right hip and back that, in turn, were sustained while pursuing a fleeing suspect in October 2014. The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System denied petitioner's application upon the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363.

Petitioner acknowledged that, as a police officer, he had a duty to respond to an accident or a crime that he witnessed — even if he was "on [his] own personal time" — and the record reflects that, after the suspect fled the scene of the initial collision, petitioner immediately reported the event to his employer, sought assistance and gave chase. Petitioner acknowledged that "[p]ursuing and subduing a fleeing suspect is an ordinary employment duty of a police officer" (Matter of Quartucio v DiNapoli, 110 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), and he agreed that such pursuits could entail "chasing [suspects] across all different types of terrain, uneven ground, jumping fences" and the like (see Matter of Sweeney v New York State Comptroller, 86 AD3d 893, 893-894 [2011]; Matter of Neidecker v DiNapoli, 82 AD3d 1483, 1484 [2011]).

Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain.

Hence, even setting aside the inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and the description of the incident as set forth in the relevant incident reports, which presented credibility issues for the Hearing Officer and respondent to resolve (see Matter of Verille v Gardner, 177 AD3d 1068, 1070 [2019]; Matter of Angelino v New York State Comptroller, 176 AD3d at 1379; see also Matter of Harris v New York State & Local Retirement Sys., 191 AD3d at 1086), substantial evidence supports respondent's finding that this incident was not an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 363.

The full text of the Appellate Division's decision is posted on the Internet at: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_04409.htm

 

The Freedom of Information Law's application to evidence collected in a criminal action

To the extent that petitioner's contentions on appeal relate to the cotton swabs stored in evidence box number seven, we reject petitioner's contentions. In order to meet his burden on his motion, respondent was required to provide documentary evidence that "utterly refute[d] [petitioner's] factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; see Matter of Nassau Community Coll. Fedn. of Teachers, Local 3150 v Nassau Community Coll., 127 AD3d 865, 866-867 [2d Dept 2015]). 

Here, in support of his motion, respondent established that Executive Law § 838-a deals with sexual offense evidence kits, whereas the only cotton swabs in evidence box number seven had been used to collect a "grease-like substance [found] on the washer/dryer" in the home of the victims, and thus no sexual offense evidence existed in petitioner's criminal case. 

Because respondent was "under no obligation to furnish [materials that he did] not possess" (Matter of Rivette v District Attorney of Rensselaer County, 272 AD2d 648, 649 [3d Dept 2000]; see generally Matter of Council of City of N.Y. v Bloomberg, 6 NY3d 380, 388 [2006]), the evidence submitted by respondent "utterly refute[d] [petitioner's] factual allegations" with respect to the cotton swabs in evidence box number seven, thereby "conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" thereto (Goshen, 98 NY2d at 326; see generally Whitebox Concentrated Convertible Arbitrage Partners, L.P. v Superior Well Servs., Inc., 20 NY3d 59, 63 [2012]).

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_04416.htm

 

Elements considered in a court review of the denial of certain records demanded pursuant to the Freedom of Information

The Agency [Custodian] of certain records demanded in a Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request appealed a Supreme Court judgment that, among other things, directed the Custodian to disclose certain documents to petitioner [Plaintiff].

The Appellate Division "unanimously modified on the law" the Supreme Court's judgment with respect to certain pages identified by "Bates stamp"* and certain emails attached to certain pages of documents that were otherwise subject to disclosure. In addition, with respect to certain documents containing identifying information of private citizens, the court ordered such personal information to be redacted from the documents. The Appellate Division then affirmed "as modified" the Supreme Court's judgment without costs."

Citing Gould v New York CityPolice Dept., 89 NY2d 267, the Appellate Division noted that "All government records are ... presumptively open for public inspection and copying unless they fall within one of the enumerated exemptions of Public Officers Law §87(2)", typically referred to as FOIL.  However, observed the court, FOIL permits an agency to deny access to records or portions thereof that are "inter-agency or intra-agency materials" that are (i) not "statistical or factual tabulations or data"; (ii) not "instructions to staff that affect the public"; (iii) not "final agency policy or determinations"; or (iv) not "external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government."

Further, said the court, the agency bears the burden of establishing that a document is exempt from disclosure.

Following an in camera** review of the documents in issue, the Appellate Division concluded that the lower court erred in ordering the disclosure of certain documents that it identified by its "Bates number". However, contrary to the Custodian's contention, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court "properly ordered disclosure of the remaining documents and portions of documents submitted for [its] review on the ground that the Custodian failed to establish that Public Officers Law §87(2 (g) exempted them from disclosure."

* Bates Numbering, also known as Bates Stamping, is an indexing method used for legal, business and medical documents (PDFs in most cases).

** "In private" and typically taking place in the private chambers of a judge, with the press and public excluded.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision. 

 

Former police chief sentenced for "pension double-dipping"

In a press release issued on July 19, 2021, New York  State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that a former police chief was sentenced for "pension double-dipping." The former Village of Chatham Chief of Police Peter Volkmann is required to pay $92,829 in restitution and perform 200 hours of community service today for defrauding the New York State pension system by concealing his unlawful post-retirement public income and for stealing from the village through sham requests for reimbursement. 

The former police chief's fraud was discovered during a joint investigation by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Columbia County District Attorney Paul Czajka, and the New York State Police.

“No one is above law, including Volkmann who, as the chief law enforcement officer of the village, not only defrauded the state retirement system but also stole from his community,” said DiNapoli. “I thank District Attorney Paul Czajka and the New York State Police for their partnership in helping us bring justice to this case.”

"Mr. Volkmann stole funds from the citizens he was sworn to protect and serve as police chief of the Village of Chatham," District Attorney Paul Czajka said. "In doing so, he undermined much of the good he did in helping and providing assistance to so many suffering from addiction. With his conviction before Judge Koweek, those funds were returned in full to the Village of Chatham and the New York State Retirement System. I thank and commend the New York State Police, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and their highly trained and proficient investigators for bringing this complex case to a successful resolution. With the assistance of the Comptroller and the State Police, we continue to investigate the Village’s finances, as well as that of another institution."

“Our investigation determined that the suspect in this case violated the public trust by circumventing retirement laws and stealing from village funds,” said State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen. “We will continue to aggressively investigate any case that involves public corruption, and I want to commend our members and the Comptroller’s Office and Columbia County District Attorney’s Office for their partnership to ensure that justice was served.”

Columbia Court Judge Richard Koweek also sentenced Volkmann to two years of conditional discharge and ordered that 100 hours of the 200 in community service he was sentenced to be done by July 2022. As part of his plea deal, Volkmann paid a total amount of $92,829 in restitution before his sentencing.

Volkmann pleaded guilty in February to grand larceny in the fourth degree for circumventing New York state’s post-retirement income restrictions and cheating the New York State and Local Retirement System out of $74,222. Volkmann hid public-source income from 19 municipalities and school districts in excess of the statutory limit by funneling the earnings through a private business, PF Volkmann & Associates. He also pled to official misconduct, a misdemeanor, for stealing $18,607 from the Village of Chatham by falsifying mileage vouchers and other reimbursements to increase his income. 

The practice of using a public office or position of trust for one's own gain or advantage is referred to as Jobbery [see https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/jobbery].