Failure to file prehearing statements required by the reviewing agency’s rules held to constitute a “waiver of defenses”

Failure to file prehearing statements required by the reviewing agency’s rules held to constitute a “waiver of defenses”
Matter of Smith v Albany County Sheriff's Dept., 2011 NY Slip Op 01559, Appellate Division, Third Department

Raymond C. Smith, a correction officer with the Albany County Sheriff’s Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging that he suffered depression and anxiety due to harassment at his work place.

Although the Sheriff Department workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, it failed to file a prehearing conference statement as required by the Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Board [12 NYCRR 300.38 (f) (1)]. As a result, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge held that the employer waived its defenses and, upon review of the medical records submitted by Smith, established the claim for a mental injury caused by work-related stress.*

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the Law Judge’s ruling and the insurance carrier appealed.

The Appellate Division, finding that Smith had submitted records sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the stress that caused the injury was greater than that experienced by others working in similar capacities and dismissed the carrier’s appeal.

The court explained that the prehearing conference statement requiring the employer to include, among other things, an offer of proof for each defense raised is designed to "facilitate the just, speedy and efficient disposition of the claimant's right to workers' compensation benefits, including settlement." The Appellate Division decided that providing by rule for a “waiver of defenses” for failing to file the statement is not an unreasonable expansion of the statute.**

* In contrast, Section 2(7) of the Workers’ Compensation Law specifically excludes from compensation "an injury which is solely mental and is based on work related stress if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer."

** Similarly, the Aures decision demonstrates the problem that could result if a party fails to appear at an administrative hearing as scheduled -- the hearing officer may hold the hearing "in absentia" and the determination will be binding on the parties [Aures v Buffalo Board of Education 272 AD2d 664].

The Smith decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01559.htm
.

Courts may not revive an expired eligible list

Courts may not revive an expired eligible list
Matter of Leone v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 01701, Appellate Division, First Department

Vincent Leone filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to reinstate an expired promotion list for the position of Sergeant in the New York City Police Department. He also asked he court to direct his retroactive promotion to the rank of Sergeant from the “reestablished eligible list.”

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of Leone’s petition, holding that Leone acknowledged that he may not be promoted from an expired list and the courts do not have the power to extend the life of a civil service list.

Leone had argued that “he was the victim of the Department's "illegal quota" system.” The court, however, said that his claimed “lacks evidentiary support.”

Further, said the Appellate Division, “given, among other things, [Leone’s] extensive disciplinary history,” the appointing authority “had a rational basis for declining to promote him.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01701.htm
.

Employee terminated for falsifying attendance records and other misconduct

Employee terminated for falsifying attendance records and other misconduct
Dinnocenzo v Lackawanna, 270 AD2d 840

In Dinnocenzo the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, sustained the termination of an employee found guilty of falsifying his time records and other offenses.

James Dinnocenzo was charged, and found guilty, of disciplinary charges alleging misconduct and insubordination. Among the specifications:

1. Unauthorized absence from work;

2. Failure to obey his superior’s orders to report his absences; and

3. Submitting time sheets falsely indicating the hours that he was present at work.

Finding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of guilt, the court said that in light of all the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to be `shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ -- the Pell doctrine [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222].

As to Dinnocenzo’s testimony concerning the reason for his absences and minimizing the length of those absences, this, said the court, raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. The Hearing Officer apparently was not persuaded by Dinnocenzo’s efforts to explain his actions.
.

Rebutting a statutory presumption

Rebutting a statutory presumption
Hutnik v Kelly, 37 AD3d 346

New York City police officer John Hutnik applied for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to Section 207-k of the General Municipal Law. Section 207-k creates a rebuttable presumption that Hutnik’s “heart-related disability” underlying his application for accidental disability retirement benefits was service-related.

In this instance the Appellate Division found that this statutory presumption was “rebutted by credible evidence” that Hutnik did not suffer from a heart-related disability, notwithstanding his personal physician’s opinion to the contrary. As there was no other evidence or claim presented by Hutnik as to any other possible cause for the medical condition underlying his claim, the Appellate Division sustained the rejection of his application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/rebuttable-presumption.html

Failure to exhaust the available administrative remedy to challenge a determination held a fatal defect in seeking judicial relief

Failure to exhaust the available administrative remedy to challenge a determination held a fatal defect in seeking judicial relief
Matter of Connor v Town of Niskayuna, 2011 NY Slip Op 01556, Appellate Division, Third Department

A number of police officers submitted applications for membership in the New York State and Local Retirement System. Although advised of the availability of two optional retirement plans available to them pursuant to §§384 and 384-d of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that an election to become a member of either optional retirement plan must be filed within one year of becoming a police officer or member of the Retirement System, none of the police officers in this action filed an election to become a member of either of the two optional plans when they submitted their applications. Accordingly, they were automatically enrolled in the retirement plan provided by Retirement and Social Security Law §375-c.

The police officers subsequently filed an application for enrollment in the §384-d retirement plan. The Comptroller, however, issued a written determination declining to process their respective applications because the statutory one-year election period had expired.

The police officers involved then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the Comptroller to accept their applications and to make all contributions required in connection with their membership in the §384-d plan. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the police officers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, pointing out “It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law," citing Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52.

Here, said the court, the Retirement and Social Security Law sets out the procedure for challenging a retirement benefit determination made by the Comptroller whereby the disappointed individual is to request a hearing and redetermination and then, upon final determination of the Comptroller, he or she commence a CPLR Article 78 proceeding.

In this instance, despite their dissatisfaction with the Comptroller's decision to reject their applications as untimely, the police officers failed to avail themselves of the proceedures set out in Retirement and Social Security Law §374(d).* The Appellate Division said that that the Comptroller's written refusal to process their applications constituted a "determination" within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §374(c).

As the police officers could have challenged the rejections of their respective applications by requesting a hearing and redetermination, they failed to do so. Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly dismissed their Article 78 petition for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them by statute.

*§374.d provides, in pertinent part, that: “At any time within four months … the applicant or his [or her] counsel may serve a written demand upon the comptroller for a hearing and redetermination of such application. … The comptroller shall have the same power upon such hearing as upon the original application. After such hearing the comptroller shall make his final determination. A copy thereof shall be mailed to the applicant and his [or her] counsel, if any. Such final determination shall be subject to review only as provided in article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01556.htm
.