Imprudent action bars accidental disability benefit

Imprudent action bars accidental disability benefit

Sullivan-Dorsey v NYC Police Pension Fund, 288 AD2d 131

The Board of Trustees of the New York City Police Pension Fund rejected the application for accidental disability benefits filed by Laura Sullivan-Dorsey, a New York City police officer. Sullivan-Dorsey appealed, contending that she was injured in the line of duty. She claimed that she was entitled to such disability benefits as a result of her falling from a building ledge while at work.

According to the decision, Sullivan-Dorsey was injured when she fell from a second-story window ledge while attempting to gain access to an adjoining office at the Queens Narcotic District Office.

Sustaining the Board's decision denying her application for accidental disability benefits, the Appellate Division said that Sullivan-Dorsey's injury was not the result of an “accident” within the meaning of City of New York Administrative Code Section 13-252 ... but of her own conscious and highly imprudent decision to attempt to gain entry to an office by means of a window ledge.

Jury’s decision in favor of plaintiff based on speculation rather than logical inference based on the evidence vacated

Jury’s decision in favor of plaintiff based on speculation rather than logical inference based on the evidence vacated
Miller v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commission, 2011 NY Slip Op 05032, Appellate Division, Second Department

Roberta Miller, claiming that she was laid off in bad faith, sued the Nassau Civil Service Commission and others seeking reinstatement to her former position and back pay.

Although the jury ruled in her favor, Supreme Court set aside the jury’s decision as contrary to the weight of the evidence and directed that a new trial be held.

Nassau appealed, contending that Supreme Court should have dismissed the action against it “as a matter of law.”

The Appellate Division agreed, holding that Supreme Court should have granted Nassau’s motion. The court said that “A finding by the jury that [Miller] was singled out for layoff due to her political affiliation could only have been reached by the jury based upon speculation, rather than logical inferences drawn from the evidence.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05032.htm

Reassignment pending disciplinary action

Reassignment pending disciplinary action

Gray v Crew, 267 AD2d 98

Prior to the filing of disciplinary charges against Dr. Simpson Gray, the New York City Community Superintendent advised Gray of the charges and “the nature of the complaints against him.” The Superintendent also told Dr. Gray that he would be transferred to the “district office” and reassigned to perform administrative duties pending the determination of the charges to be filed against him.

Gray challenged the transfer and reassignment to administrative duties but a State Supreme Court justice rejected his petition to rescind the superintendent’s decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, sustained the lower court’s dismissal of Gray’s petition.

The relevant law in this situation: subdivisions 7(c) and 8 of Section 2590-j of the Education Law. Subdivision 7(c) requires the community superintendent, “in advance of the filing of charges and specification,” to inform the teacher or administrator and the community board of “the nature of the complaint.” The court said that the community superintendent had complied with this requirement.

The court also noted that Subdivision 8 authorizes the community superintendent to transfer teachers and supervisors within the district without their consent for a number of reasons including “disciplinary action pursuant to subdivision 7....”

The Appellate Division said that “[c]ontrary to [Gray’s] claims” there were no procedural violations and the community superintendent “properly exercised” discretionary authority when Gray was transferred to the District Office pending the determination of disciplinary charges then pending against him.

The court also concluded held that Gray’s right to due process was not violated “since the discretionary transfer to which [Gray] was subject does not implicate due process concerns.”

Gray also argued that the reassignment caused him “irreparable financial or professional harm attributable to the Superintendent’s action.” The Appellate Division disagreed, pointing out “the transfer did not entail any reduction in [Gray’s] pay, and [Gray’s] lawsuit provides the basis for recovery of damages, if any.

The Appellate Division dismissed Gray appeal, setting out the following three reasons for its ruling:

1. Gray failed to show his probability of success on the merits;

2. Gray failed to prove any danger that he would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of the requested relief; and

3. Gray did not demonstrate that the equities balanced in his favor.

Determining the amount of an award by the Division of Human Rights following its finding that an employee suffered discriminatory retaliation

Determining the amount of an award by the Division of Human Rights following its finding that an employee suffered discriminatory retaliation

Matter of Roy C. Bell v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 36 AD3d 1129

Roy Bell was a probationary elementary school physical education teacher employed by the New Paltz Central School District. Denied tenure, Bell filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights alleging that he was sexually harassed by his supervisor and was shortly thereafter denied tenure in retaliation for making a complaint to his union representative concerning the matter.

The Commissioner of Human Rights dismissed the sexual harassment charge but sustained the charge that the District had unlawfully retaliated against Bell for complaining to the union by denying him tenure.

The Commissioner awarded Bell $171,491, less withholdings and deductions for federal, state and local income taxes, as damages for back pay for the period between 1990 through 1998. The Commissioner also awarded Bell $25,000 in compensatory damages

Bell appealed the award, contending that the award of back pay was insufficient because, among other things, it failed to include certain stipends that he would have earned had his employment continued.

In reviewing the award, the Appellate Division held that:

● Based on the evidence, there was no reasonable basis to conclude that Bell would not have continued coaching for additional compensation had his employment not ended and, as such, the back pay award must be recalculated to reflect those additional coaching stipends.

● The Commissioner should not direct the District withhold deductions for federal, state and local income taxes as federal courts have held that an employer should not be permitted to pay less in a back pay award simply by deducting the taxes it assumes that the employee will owe on the award, because that would give “a benefit it has not earned [to the employer, who] had the entire use of the money during the litigation” citing Curl v Reavis, 608 F Supp 1265. However, Bell would remain personally responsible for his tax liability for those years, taking into account all applicable allowances or deductions.

● The Commissioner took all relevant factors into account, including the financial difficulties that petitioner experienced upon separation from his employment, and rendered an award “reasonably related to the discriminatory conduct” that the agency found to exist.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_00367.htm

Reimbursing NYSHIP Medicare-eligible retirees for Medicare Part B premiums

Reimbursing NYSHIP Medicare-eligible retirees for Medicare Part B premiums
Munger v Board of Educ. of the Garrison Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 05034, Appellate Division, Second Department

Carol Munger and other retirees of the Garrison Union Free School District sued in an effort to recover damages for breach of contract and for a judgment declaring that they are entitled to reimbursement for money they expended for Medicare Part B premiums since reaching the age of 65. Supreme Court dismissed Munger’s Article 78 petition.
Munger appealed and the Appellate Division reinstated that branch of her petition seeking reimbursement for Medicare Part B premium payments

Ruling that the issue of the school district's obligation to reimburse Munger and her co-plaintiffs for their Medicare part B premiums was not decided in the prior arbitration proceeding, the Appellate Division held that the arbitrator's award did not have preclusive effect on Munger's Article 78 action.

The court then explained that in considering a motion to dismiss a pleading for failure to state a cause of action, “the court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.”

Noting that Munger had submitted documents relating to the school district’s obligation, “as members of the statewide health care consortium,” to reimburse their retired employees for Medicare Part B premiums paid by the retirees pursuant to Civil Service Law §167-a, the Appellate Division observed that Civil Service Law §167-a requires that employers participating in the New York State Health Program for State and Local Governments to reimburse retirees who are 65 years of age or older for Medicare premium charges.

According, said the court, Munger and her co-plaintiffs every possible favorable inference from their allegations and supporting documents, the Garrison Union Free School District’s motion to dismiss Munger's first cause of action alleging breach of the collective bargaining agreements and seeking declaratory relief should have been denied.


Randall Comments: The Munger case appears to be another example of a public employer participating in the New York State Health Insurance Program attempting to circumvent the mandates of Civil Service Law §167-a* A brief review of the genesis of §167-a may be illuminating.

Many years ago Thomas McCracken, the then director of the Department of Civil Service’s health insurance unit, concluded that the State could realize substantial financial benefits in terms of a reduction in the employer’s contributions to the New York State Health Insurance Program for State and Local Government [NYSHIP] if individuals and the dependents of such individuals that were Medicare eligible retirees had Medicare as their primary insurer.**

Mr. McCracken was instrumental in the drafting and adoption of Civil Service Law §167-a to this end. He also successfully advocated modifying NYSHIP's health insurance contracts to “exclude” from NYSHIP coverage those benefits otherwise available to Medicare eligible retirees and their dependents under Medicare. The reason for this: Medicare premiums were less than the premium costs that would have been otherwise required were the State to continue to provide these benefits to retirees and their dependents were NYSHIP the primary insurer.

In developing the plan, Mr. McCracken realized that, in effect, “excluding” such coverage for retirees in the NYSHIP contracts for health insurance mandated that the Medicare eligible retirees designate Medicare as their primary insurer or lose a significant portion of their health insurance coverage as the NYSHIP contracts would only provide Medicare-eligible retirees and their dependents with health insurance benefits otherwise available to active employee that were not covered by Medicare.

To maintain their same level of health insurance benefits, the Medicare eligible retiree would be required to pay the Medicare premium otherwise required for Medicare as well as the full “employee contribution” required for NYSHIP. Hence the amendment of the Civil Service Law to provide for the reimbursement of Medicare premiums to the Medicare eligible retirees set out in §167-a.

As an illustration, if the employee contribution for individual coverage in NYSHIP was $xxx per year, the Medicare eligible retiree would be required to pay $xxx for his or her NYSHIP participation and, in addition, pay $yyy per year for Medicare premiums for a total of $zzz.Thus the Medicare eligible retiree would be eligible for the same level of health insurance benefits otherwise available to the non-Medicare eligible individual under NYSHIP but would be required to pay more in premiums for the identical coverage.

To eliminate this adverse financial impact on Medicare eligible retirees, §167-a was enacted in order to provide for the reimbursement of Medicare premiums to Medicare eligible retirees by the retiree’s employer, thus, once again, limiting their cost for health insurance to the $xxx per year that was required of active employees and non-Medicare eligibles in NYSHIP while NYSHIP continued to reap substantial financial savings to the benefit of the State and NYSHIP’s participating employers.

Simply stated, but for the Medicare eligible retirees participating in Medicare as their primary health insurance carrier, the health insurance costs to the State, participating employers and NYSHIP enrollees, active and retired, for health insurance benefits through NYSHIP would be higher.

* Civil Service Law §167-a, in pertinent part, provides: Reimbursement for medicare premium charges. Upon exclusion from the coverage of the health benefit plan of supplementary medical insurance benefits for which an active or retired employee or a dependent covered by the health benefit plan is or would be eligible under the federal old-age, survivors and disability insurance program, an amount equal to the premium charge for such supplementary medical insurance benefits for such active or retired employee and his or her dependents, if any, shall be paid monthly or at other intervals to such active or retired employee from the health insurance fund.

In addition, 4 NYCRR 73.3(6) provides as follows: (6) The employer shall pay an additional sum each month equal to the current monthly Federal Medicare charge as the employer's share of the cost of coverage for each employee and dependent covered under the health insurance plan who is 65 years of age or older, while 4 NYCRR 73.1(b), Definitions, defines the term "employer" as follows: (b) The term employer or an employer shall include the State of New York (in all its departments and agencies and those departments and agencies of the State maintained and financed from special or administrative funds) and any participating employer. The term participating employer shall mean any public authority, public benefit corporation, school district, district corporation, municipal corporation or other public agency, subdivision or quasi-public organization which elects, with the approval of the President of the Civil Service Commission, to include its employees and/or retired employees in the plan.

** Eligible individuals are not required by federal law to participate in Medicare upon attaining age 65 but if the individual elects not to do so, he or she may be required to pay higher Medicare premiums should he or she later decide to enroll in Medicare.

The Munger decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05034.htm