Rules and regulations of the Department of Civil Service reviewed.in accordance with §207 of the State Administrative Procedure Act

Rules and regulations of the Department of Civil Service reviewed in accordance with §207 of the State Administrative Procedure Act

Source: The New York State Register


§207 of the State Administrative Procedures Act, in pertinent part, provides that any rule adopted on or after its effective ion for the rule, provided that at a minimum every rule shall be initially reviewed no later than in the fifth calendar year after the year in which the rule is adopted, and, thereafter, every rule shall be re-reviewed at five-year intervals.

The April 15, 2015 issue of the New York State Register reports the publication of the Five Year review of certain existing rules and regulations set out in 4 NYCRR and the conclusion of the forty-five (45) day public comment period. No public comments were received regarding any of the rules and regulations listed below during this forty-five day comment period.

The rules and regulations reviewed were found to “have functioned consistent with the purposes underlying their adoption and are continued without modification:”

Adopted in 2000

1. Amendment to Chapter I of Title 4 of NYCRR (Rules for the Classified Service). The resolution added a new subdivision (vii) to paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of Rule 4.5 to provide for a probationary term for the position of “Thruway Maintenance Worker” of not less than 26 weeks nor more than 52 weeks.

2. Amendments to Chapter IV of 4 NYCRR (Regulations of the State Civil Service Commission [Commission’s Regulations]) A new §55.5 codified the long-standing Civil Service Commission practice of granting prior approval for certain examination rating keys, according to the conditions and standards set forth within such section, upon the request of the Civil Service Department’s Director of Examinations or his or her designee. The existing §§55.5 and 55.6 were renumbered §§55.6 and 55.7, respectively.

Adopted in 2005

Amendment to Chapter I of Title 4 of NYCRR (Rules for the Classified Service). The resolution added a new paragraph (viii) to subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of Rule 4.5 to provide for a probationary term for the positions of “University Police Officer 1” and “University Police Officer 1 (Spanish Language)” of not less than 52 weeks nor more than 78 weeks.

Adopted in 2010

Amendment to Chapter V of Title 4 of NYCRR (Regulations of the Department of Civil Service [President’s Regulations]). The resolution added a new paragraph to Rule 72.1 designating the Authorities Budget Office as a separate unit for suspension, demotion or displacement within the Department of State.

Individual’s right to due process in a disciplinary hearing was not violated when the complaining witness was absent from the hearing due to intimidation and feared to testify

Individual’s right to due process in a disciplinary hearing was not violated when the complaining witness was absent from the hearing due to intimidation and feared to testify

2015 NY Slip Op 03075, Appellate Division, First Department

The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health adopted an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to sustain the three charges alleging patient abuse and/or neglect by a certified nurse's aide [Aide]. The Aide appealed the Commissioner's determination but the Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner’s finding that the Aide was guilty of these three charges alleged in the notice of discipline.

The Appellate Division said that there was no basis for disturbing the ALJ’s determination with respect to the credibility of witnesses, citing Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436.

The court found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings including:

1. Consistent testimony from several witnesses;

2. Photographs of the patient’s bruises; and

3. The facility's clinical records.

Further, the Appellate Division said that the Aide’s right to administrative due process was not violated as the result of the patient's absence at the hearing as the record supports the ALJ’s finding that the patient was intimidated and was afraid to testify.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03075.htm

General Municipal Law §207-c Hearing Officer entitled to weigh conflicting medical opinions and determine which expert’s testimony to credit.

General Municipal Law §207-c Hearing Officer entitled to weigh conflicting medical opinions and determine which expert’s testimony to credit.

2015 NY Slip Op 03214, Appellate Division, Third Department

A correction officer [CO] at a county correctional facility sustained a concussion when he hit his head on a wall while attempting to restrain an inmate. Treated for symptoms attributed to a mild traumatic brain injury and post-concussive disorder, he began receiving benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c.*

Subsequently the County Sheriff [Sheriff] offered CO the opportunity to return to work on light duty status where he would be assigned to “a sitting job with no inmate contact and no lifting, pushing or pulling any objects in excess of two pounds.” CO refused to accept the light duty assignment and the matter was submitted to an administrative hearing in accordance with the relevant procedures set out in the collective bargaining agreement applicable to CO.

The Hearing Officer's recommendation: CO should be returned to light duty. The Sheriff adopted the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and ordered CO to report as assigned.** CO appealed the Sheriff’s decision.

The question before the Appellate Division: Was the Sheriff's determination supported by substantial evidence?

The Sheriff’s expert, a neuropsychologist, conducted an independent medical examination of CO that included a number of neuropsychological tests, had opined that CO could return to work, testifying that in his opinion”

1. CO had exerted "suboptimal effort" during the testing, and that he found nothing that would prohibit CO  from returning to work based on cognitive and psychological issues; and

2. After a follow-up examination of CO, Sheriff’s expert again opined that CO could return to work.

In contrast, CO’s, also a neuropsychologist, testified that CO displayed deficits in visual and mental processing, planning, language comprehension, attention, concentration and memory and in her opinion CO “was not able to work in the proposed light duty position.”

The Appellate Division explained that while CO’s expert did not agree with the Sheriff’s expert, the Hearing Officer was entitled to weigh the conflicting medical opinions and determine which expert’s testimony to credit.

Although CO had argued that the Sheriff’s expert’s opinion was based on unreliable test results and should not have been credited, the Appellate Division said that the Sheriff’s expert did not indicate that the test results were unreliable, but that the test results showed that CO's claims were unreliable.

The court dismissed CO’s appeal, holding that where the appointing authority’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, as it was in this case, it will not be disturbed.

* §207-c of the General Municipal Law provides for the payment of salary, wages, medical and hospital expenses of police officers and other law enforcement personnel suffering injuries or illness incurred in the performance of duties.

** §207-c 3 of the General Municipal Law provides, in pertinent part that in the event the individual is not eligible for or is not granted such accidental disability retirement allowance or retirement for disability incurred in performance of duty allowance or similar accidental disability pension and, in the opinion of such health authorities or physician, is unable to perform his regular duties as a result of such injury or sickness but is able, in their opinion, “to perform specified types of light police duty, payment of the full amount of regular salary or wages, as provided by subdivision one of this section, shall be discontinued with respect to such policeman if he shall refuse to perform such light police duty if the same is available and offered to him, provided, however, that such light duty shall be consistent with his [or her] status as a policeman...” [emphasis supplied].  

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_03214.htm

_____________

Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

_____________