Determinations by certain other entities not binding on a retirement system's medical board if the medical board's decision is supported by substantial evidence

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition to annul Medical Board's determination rejecting Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement [ADR] benefits and dismissed the proceeding Petitioner brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling, without costs.

The Appellate Division opined "Petitioner has not shown that [the Medical Board's] determination to deny her application for ADR benefits was arbitrary and capricious or made in violation of lawful procedure", citing Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139.

The court explained the evidence submitted at the hearing included the Medical Board's physical examination of Petitioner and its exhaustive review of the conflicting medical evidence from examining physicians, as well as Petitioner's acknowledgment that she could, without assistance, "perform daily life activities such as bathing, dressing, and walking." The Appellate Division's decision also noted "the Medical Board concluded that [Petitioner] did not complain of pain in her back, neck, and extremities when she went to the emergency room immediately after the accident underlying her request for ADR benefits, and that her various orthopedic problems were part of a normal degenerative process in a middle-aged person."

The Appellate Division's opinion noted that the Medical Board's determination conflicted with the finding of the Social Security Administration that awarded Petitioner disability benefits and Petitioner acknowledged "the finding of the Social Security Administration is not binding on the Medical Board [see Matter of Fusco, 136 AD3d at 451]".

Similarly, public safety officers and firefighters who have been deemed as suffering an occupational injury or disease within the meaning of the Worker's Compensation Law are sometimes disappointed to find that decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board have no bearing on their eligibility for other benefits such as accidental retirement benefits or General Municipal Law §207-a or §207-c benefits. For example, in Balcerak v County of Nassau, 94 NY2d 253, the Court of Appeals ruled that entitlement to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law §207-c are discrete and entirely independent of one another. 

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

 ===============

Disability benefits for New York State and municipal employees

A 1098 page e-book focusing on administering the Retirement and Social Security Law, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and similar laws providing disability benefits to employees of the State of New York and its political subdivisions. 

For more information and access to a free excerpt of the material presented in this NYPPL e-book, click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html.

 

The "Pell doctrine" applied in judicial review of the penalty imposed on a public employee found guilty of disciplinary charges

The determination of appointing authority [Employer] terminating Petitioner's employment based on the report and recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge following a disciplinary hearing was unanimously confirmed by the Appellate Division.

The court noted that "Substantial evidence supports [the Employer's] determination that Petitioner violated Department directives and procedures concerning the retrieval of inmate property, engaged in undue familiarity with an inmate, failed to submit a required unusual incident report, used excessive force against an inmate, and made false and misleading statements."

Under the circumstances, the Appellate Division opined that "The penalty of termination of petitioner's employment does not shock one's sense of fairness", citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, among other decisions.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

=============

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty - for information and access to a free excerpt of the material presented in this 442 page NYPPL e-book, click HERE.

 

From the Blogs for the week ending October 13, 2023

How Can Local Governments Safely Use Generative AI?
A new task force formed by MetroLab is seeking to explore this question, doing so by including more than 45 local governments, alongside other public, academic and private-sector members. READ MORE

 

Are We Witnessing the Death of the Password?
Long the front line of digital security, the humble password may be on its way out. Or maybe not. In a landscape packed with alternatives — and increasingly destructive cyberattacks — it’s complicated. READ MORE

 

What Cyber Response Can Learn from Traditional Disasters
Government has battle-tested playbooks for dealing with hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires. As cyber emergencies become both more common and more devastating, what can cyber responders learn from physical emergency response? READ MORE

 

Boulder Disaster Management Social Account Hacked, Disabled
The official Twitter/X account for the Boulder, Colo., Office of Disaster Management was deactivated to prevent “suspicious activity” after it was apparently hacked over the weekend. READ MORE

 

Climate Vulnerability Index Shows Weather Impacts Neighborhoods
The new map analyzes more than 70,000 tracts across the nation and illustrates what conditions shape a person’s level of vulnerability, including factors such as health, socioeconomic impact, environment, weather events, infrastructure and more. READ MORE

 

 

 

 

 

Judicial review of a determination denying a petitioner's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits

Petitioner, a police officer, filed an application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits, alleging that he was permanently incapacitated therefrom due to injuries sustained to his neck and back after falling down a set of stairs. The application was denied, and Petitioner requested a hearing and redetermination. At the conclusion of the hearing that followed, during the course of which Petitioner, his treating physician and the physician who evaluated Petitioner at the request of the New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS] appeared and testified, the Hearing Officer upheld the denial, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties. The State  Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions, and Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Comptroller's determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Comptroller's determination, explaining:

1. Petitioner, as the applicant, bore the burden of establishing that he was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties as a police officer "as the natural and proximate result of a disability . . . sustained in such service";

2. The State Comptroller "is vested with the exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits";

3. The Comptroller's determination in this regard, if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole, will not be disturbed; and

4. Conflicting medical testimony presented a credibility issue for the Comptroller to resolve and the opinion rendered by Petitioner's treating physician was not entitled to greater weight over that of the physician who evaluated Petitioner at the request of the ERS and the Comptroller was free to credit ERS' expert's opinion over that of Petitioner's, despite the treating physician familiarity with the Petitioner.

Thus, the Appellate Division opined that the Comptroller's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

 

Paid Family Leave for employees of the State in Managerial or Confidential positions

This addition to 4 NYCRR 28-1.19 provides for a grant of up to twelve weeks of paid family leave for a "qualifying event" to eligible employees of the State as the employer serving in positions designated managerial or confidential within the meaning of Article 14 of the Civil Service Law [the so-called Taylor Law].

The text of rule and any statements and analyses may be obtained from: Jennifer Paul, NYS Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 1, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-6598, email: commops@cs.ny.gov.